Jay Soffian [off-list ref] writes:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Eugene Sajine [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Yes. I was trying to change the HEAD on the bare remote (origin) repo
and the concept here is really confusing.
The remote command is about updating things under .git/refs/remotes,
not about updating a remote server. For updating a remote server,
there is really only push. Clear as mud?
We still support (and unfortunately we would probably end up supporting
for a long time) "remote update" so it is not strictly true, but that is
the original motivation behind "git remote" subcommand.
Understood. I'm not sure whether the send-pack/receive-pack protocol
supports the notion of "I want to change what HEAD points to."
It does not support it, but that is not because there is a strong reason
it shouldn't.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Jay Soffian [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The remote command is about updating things under .git/refs/remotes,
not about updating a remote server. For updating a remote server,
there is really only push. Clear as mud?
We still support (and unfortunately we would probably end up supporting
for a long time) "remote update" so it is not strictly true, but that is
the original motivation behind "git remote" subcommand.
But "remote update" updates the local repo from the remote, it doesn't
do anything to the remote itself. That is the point I was trying to
make clear -- "git remote" doesn't ever do anything to the remote
repo, it only updates things on the local repo.
quoted
Understood. I'm not sure whether the send-pack/receive-pack protocol
supports the notion of "I want to change what HEAD points to."
It does not support it, but that is not because there is a strong reason
it shouldn't.
Okay. I'm sure deciding where to place the command "I want to update
what HEAD on remote points to" would be a fun discussion. :-)
j.