On Thu, May 07 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> When I, as a newcomer of a given repo, do "git tag" I know I'm looking
> at a lot of "not current" information. On the contrary, when I do "git
> branch" I start trying figure out what each branch means. Having
> around a lot of no longer used bran
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:55:23AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Frédéric Brière [2009.05.07.0232 +0200]:
> > Yeah, but it'll remain in your refs/heads namespace forever, won't it?
> > Kinda sucks to have git-branch spew out every patch that's ever existed.
> > :(
> Like git-tag "spe
also sprach Frédéric Brière [2009.05.07.0232 +0200]:
> Yeah, but it'll remain in your refs/heads namespace forever, won't it?
> Kinda sucks to have git-branch spew out every patch that's ever existed.
> :(
Like git-tag "spews" out every tag ever created?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft Relat
also sprach Frédéric Brière [2009.05.07.0223 +0200]:
> I wish there was a way to combine both options: update all refs
> already on the server *and* push any ref matching a certain
> pattern.
I am sure that patch won't be hard to write. If you don't have the
time, maybe file a wishlist bug or bri
