Hi,

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 17:16 +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
> > To me, it's more along the lines of "let git help me not make the 
> > mistake of hacking on a six-week old codebase when I've explicitly asked 
> > it to merge these and those remote tracking branches into these and 
> > those local branches". Not updating those branches when there *are* 
> > changes on them is something users can understand and will probably also 
> > appreciate, but the reason for not allowing even fast-forwards escape me.
> 
> I'd love this behavior, FWIW.
> 
> The "branches should not track their origin by default" seems suited
> only to Linux kernel maintainers who frequently pull from many different
> people, not to "random hacker who wants to keep track of a project he
> doesn't maintain" :)

The problem I see here is not that the kernel folks would suffer, but that 
the behaviour would not be easy to explain.  Which is a sure way to not 
only give people rope, but put their heads in the noose.

Not having clear semantics is prone to lead to misunderstandings, and 
mistakes.

IOW while I trust you when you say it would make things easier for you, I 
am quite certain it would make things much harder for a substantial part 
of the rest of humanity.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
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