On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:17:14PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > If so, then this series isn't regressing behavior; the only downside is
> > that it's an incomplete fix. In theory this could get in the way of the
> > full fix later on, but given the commit messages and the archive of this
> > discussion, it would be simple enough to revert it later in favor of a
> > more full fix. Is that accurate?
> From my understanding, yes.
> > Sorry if I am belaboring the discussion. I just want to make sure I
> > understand the situation before deciding what to do with the topic. It
> > sounds like the consensus at this point is "not perfect, but good enough
> > to make forward progress".
> I appreciate that stance very much. The patch Sverre and I proposed was
> also an incomplete fix (although I suspect it would fix the issue you
> pointed out above), so I agree with the "perfect is the enemy of the good"
> approach, obviously.
Thanks for the response.
> May I just ask to include a summary of that rationale into the commit
> message rather than relying on people having internet access and knowing
> where to look? Adding the following to the commit message would be good
> enough for me:
> Note that
> $ git branch foo master~1
> $ git fast-export foo master~1..master
> still does not update the "foo" ref, but a partial fix is better
> than no fix.
Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense.
Felipe, I notice that you sent out a big "fast-export improvements"
series. Does that supersede this?
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