On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Would it be sufficient to do this? I think "the tag already exists
> in the remote" is already clear that we are talking about the
> destination.
Good point.
> diff --git a/builtin/push.c b/builtin/push.c
> index a2b3fbe..78789be 100644
Chris Rorvick writes:
> Had I written the the "already exists" advice in the context of these
> additional statuses I would have said "the destination *tag* reference
> already exists", or maybe even just "the destination *tag* already
> exists".
Yeah, now we do not use "already exists" for anyt
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This builds on Chris Rorvick's earlier effort to forbid unforced
> updates to refs/tags/ hierarchy and giving sensible error and advise
> messages for that case (we are not rejecting such a push due to fast
> forwardness, and suggesting to f
This builds on Chris Rorvick's earlier effort to forbid unforced
updates to refs/tags/ hierarchy and giving sensible error and advise
messages for that case (we are not rejecting such a push due to fast
forwardness, and suggesting to fetch and integrate before pushing
again does not make sense).
T
4 matches
Mail list logo
