Quoting Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>:

quoted text
>>> Sorry, how does the patch make you lose some of your work (as
>>> opposed to some of your time, which is possible as is the case for
>>> every backwards incompatible change)?
>>
>> Because I will lose some of the refs and then have to dig them up in the
>> reflog.
>>
>> I'm not comfortable with the reflog. I appreciate its usefulness, but I'm
>> thoroughly unhappy when I'm forced to use it.
>
> So am I, but still it would lose time (to dig refs up in the reflog),
> not work (e.g. having to rewrite code).  I think we're in agreement on
> this part.
>
>> Yes, I understand the rationale, and I do have an alternative idea, which
>> is to make it configurable.
>
> Then sorry, but I think you don't understand the rationale.  The cover
> letter has excerpts from other git hackers' e-mails that explain it
> better than I can.  But shortly speaking, the point of the patch is to
> remove the "magic" operation of "git fetch" as "git fetch
> origin". Removing is quite the opposite of "add a configuration option
> that disables it, but leave the old behavior as default".
>
>> Now that I think about it, it's probably useful to have it
>> togglable via command-line switch as well. Something along the
>> lines of "git fetch --all-remotes", perhaps.
>
> Making it accessible via a command-line switch is pointless, as we
> already have "git remote update" for that.
>
> Paolo

Sorry but then why does this patch have to even touch "git fetch"?  Isn't it enough to run "git remote update"?

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a free email account with anti spam protection.
http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/2

--
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