On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:53:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Yes. The concept isn't that hard, but the question was one of whether it
> > would break some obscure workflows. But I don't remember all of the
> > details; I think I gave some examples in past threads.
> I think the one Thomas lists in $gmane/165758 is the one.

The one I was thinking of is:


> The primary reason why I do not think this is relevant these days is
> because the original premise "remote tracking branches keep what the
> last 'git fetch' observed" has already been broken for a long time.
> The users are better off thinking that the remote tracking branches
> can be updated any time (not just the last 'git fetch') when Git
> observes (or could observe) the state of the remote without being
> told explicitly with today's "pretend as if we fetched immediately
> after we push" behaviour.

Yeah, that is certainly my mental model, and how "git push" works (and
how the patch I linked to above works). I actually don't care that much
either way, which is why I haven't polished up that patch. I'd be happy
if somebody worked on it, but I don't know if it is all that interesting
a student project. It is not much development, and mostly about digging
in the history of what tracking branches mean, and convincing everybody
it's a good change. Which is hard for any newcomer to the community to
do as a first project.

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