Dear diary, on Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:57:50PM CEST, I got a letter
where Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Hi,


> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > You might get the push access rather lately in the process (this "lazy
> > development privileges granting" is one of the point of distributed
> > VCSes), at point where other people are used to pull from you and
> > renaming your branch locally might mean some trouble.
> I still do not get it. What is so wrong with
>       git-switch-tree remotehead
>       git-merge master
>       git-push remoteside remotehead
> which would have the further advantage of documenting what you really did
> in the history.

How would that document anything normal push wouldn't?

> And if you really want to be able to spread chaos in your own head, you
> can do something like
>       ln -s master .git/refs/heads/remotehead
>       git-push remoteside remotehead

I'd argue that's much more messy and evil than pushing to heads with
different names. If you compare what you just proposed with pushing to
heads with different names, what's the advantage?

                                Petr "Pasky" Baudis
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone.  -- Alan Cox
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to