On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoak...@iee.org> wrote:
> From: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contre...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:21 PM
>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Philip Oakley" <philipoak...@iee.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Another trick is to use "git push":
>>>>> git push . $production_sha1:refs/heads/master
>>>
>>>
>>> It all falls out naturally from the "Git is distributed and no
>>> repository is special" principle. I think that word "trick" merely
>>> refers to "those who do not realize that the local repository is not
>>> all that special and merely is _a_ repository just like anybody
>>> else's may not realize they can do this", nothing more.
>>
>> Nobody cares.
>
> The value of the trick was acknowledged as now being in use
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/223572
How is that more useful than 'git branch -f master $sha1'?
> Not sure if that was the caring you were commenting on.
My point is that nobody uses '.' as a remote. Yes, you can find the
occasional esoteric person in the Git mailing list that might find
some weird command useful, but that's the fringe user-base.
>> You say it's "mistaken", but you are not the arbiter of truth; the
>> fact that you say it's so doesn't make it so. It's just rhetoric.
>>
>> You haven't shown that it's indeed mistaken.
>
>
> An aside: in some domains (e.g. Human Error taxonomy) a 'mistake' is a
> planned action which later turns out to not be the action that would now
> have, in retrospect, been chosen. The intent was good, but is later classed
> (within the taxonomy) as a 'mistake'. (It is not related to 'blame').
Yeah, that's what a mistake is, in my mind.
> If I understand the extended thread correctly, the approach moved on and
> alternatives were found, so in that sense the intent was good.
No, the approach didn't move on, there are no better alternatives, the
"intent" is irrelevant, the approach is good, there is no mistake.
Junio simply ignored the fact that he was proven wrong.
I still haven't received a response: which makes more sense?
a)
% git checkout svn-ext
% git fetch
From .
* branch master -> FETCH_HEAD
# oops
% git fetch git-svn
% git log ..FETCH_HEAD
% git merge FETCH_HEAD
b)
% git checkout svn-ext
% git fetch
From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git
680ed3e..de3a5c6 master -> origin/master
# oops
% git fetch svn-ext
% git log ..FETCH_HEAD
% git merge FETCH_HEAD
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
