Chris Rorvick <> writes:

> I agree with everything above.  I just don't understand why reverting
> the "already exists" behavior for non-commit-ish objects was a
> prerequisite to fixing this.

Because it is a regression.  People who did not force such a push
did not get "already exists", but with your patch they do.

By reverting the wrong message so that we get the old wrong message
instead, people will only have to deal with an already known
breakage; a known devil is better than an unknown new devil (or an
unknown angel).

When a change that brings in a regression and an improvement at the
same time, it does not matter what the improvement is; we fix the
regression first as soon as safely possible and we then attempt to
resurrect and polish the improvement.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to