On 19 Jul 2012, at 13:55, Jeff King wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:30:59AM +0200, Alexey Muranov wrote:
>> i would like
>> `git fetch --prune <remote>`
>> to be the default behavior of
>> `git fetch <remote>`
>> In fact, i think this is the only reasonable behavior.
>> Keeping copies of deleted remote branches after `fetch` is more confusing 
>> than useful.
> I agree it would be much less confusing. However, one downside is that
> we do not keep reflogs on deleted branches (and nor did the commits in
> remote branches necessarily make it into the HEAD reflog). That makes
> "git fetch" a potentially destructive operation (you irrevocably lose
> the notion of which remote branches pointed where before the fetch, and
> you open up new commits to immediate pruning by "gc --auto".

I do not still understand very well some aspects of Git, like the exact purpose 
of "remote tracking branches" (are they for pull or for push?), so i may be 
However, i thought that a user was not expected to follow the moves of a remote 
branch of which the user is not an owner: if the user needs to follow the brach 
and not lose its commits, he/she should create a remote tracking branch.

> So I think it would be a lot more palatable if we kept reflogs on
> deleted branches. That, in turn, has a few open issues, such as how to
> manage namespace conflicts (e.g., the fact that a deleted "foo" branch
> can conflict with a new "foo/bar" branch).

I prefer to think of a remote branch and its local copy as the same thing, 
which are physically different only because of current real 
world/hardware/software limitations, which make it necessary to keep a local 
cache of remote data.  With this approach, reflogs should be deleted with the 
branch, and there will be no namespace conflicts.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to