Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Is there?  I do not think "volatile" is particularly a good
> description for this, but showing what is pushed as a concrete
> branch name feels like a good improvement to me, at least in
> principle.

Okay.  I used "volatile", because push does not lock HEAD when the
operation begins, even though it performs a super-late resolution (in
the transport-layer); HEAD is not guaranteed to remain invariant in
that time.  Suggest nicer wording?

> I haven't picked them up, and I won't be picking them up today, as I
> suspect this series may conflict with the pre-2.0 preparation and
> 2.0 transition patches and I may end up having to fix conflicts
> unnecessarily (resolving is eventually needed before 2.0 happens,
> but resolving them, or even having to worry about the possibility
> that I may have to do so, do not have to steal time from me today).

We're at 1.8.3; isn't it a little early to be thinking of 2.0?  Is it
conflicting with jc/push-2.0-default-to-simple in pu?  I should
re-send after this topic graduates to master in 2.0?

I have no problems re-sending at a convenient time (provided you tell
me how to determine that convenient time), but reviews don't have to
wait: it's fresh in my memory now.
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