Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] doc: command line interface (cli) dot-repository dwimmery

From: "Felipe Contreras" <redacted>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:03 AM

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Philip Oakley [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: "Felipe Contreras" <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:21 PM

quoted

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

"Philip Oakley" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

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'?

The 'trick' checks for a fast forward, while the branch update is forced. It depends on what checks are desired.

My original patch was to simply document Git's dot repository capability that does not appear to be that well known. Let's not keep it as an Easter Egg.

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3162/6344 - Release Date: 05/21/13