From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ivan Shmakov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Multiple checkout copies Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 19:17:36 +0000 Message-ID: <877fvyhkj3.fsf@violet.siamics.net> References: <54CE9E10.5000709@cs.ucla.edu> <87sieogqgf.fsf@violet.siamics.net> <87386ncnz3.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87oapb2t2e.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y4ofb1gt.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87fvan2l29.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87fvanglpz.fsf@violet.siamics.net> <87bnlb2j48.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnlahmpf.fsf@violet.siamics.net> <87zj8u25eh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1422991076 26265 80.91.229.3 (3 Feb 2015 19:17:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 19:17:56 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 03 20:17:52 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiyt-0007Ci-P6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:17:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32803 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiyt-00059T-7U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:17:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42477) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiyp-00058m-Rw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:17:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiyo-0000NI-K6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:17:47 -0500 Original-Received: from fely.am-1.org ([2a01:4f8:d15:1b86::2]:37695) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiyo-0000N2-Ay for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:17:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=siamics.net; s=a2013295; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:Sender:References:Subject:To:From; bh=WCJMaaXC5tLJK/Rvcdf44Ul1LfJheVPbp3mTI8aCetA=; b=JUJ4l0iHbDwGUSMb85Twese4ihkigZM0Ciu1RiS+54fIFIR9JwPSIFiSZbDB5lK7jI7+cQq7O6/zNxStn3ziupFqyIN3JsClQpBX/QPgX+8KEJhTxYYVIU0h1KlrSyjQMjY5UTv4so9/VOTVe/qiBxGIJGrYZH51AWjmD5bLU90=; Original-Received: from [2a02:2560:6d4:26ca::1:1d] (helo=violet.siamics.net) by fely.am-1.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiym-0005O4-04 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 19:17:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=violet.siamics.net) by violet.siamics.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YIiye-0006HO-QN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 02:17:36 +0700 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87zj8u25eh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Tue, 03 Feb 2015 19:53:26 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a01:4f8:d15:1b86::2 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:182338 Archived-At: >>>>> David Kastrup writes: >>>>> Ivan Shmakov writes: >>>>> David Kastrup writes: [=E2=80=A6] >>> If you want to mirror the upstream, you'll use "git fetch -p" in >>> order to have branches that are removed upstream to get deleted in >>> the mirror as well. >> And why would I want that, > In order not to accumulate temporary branches that are no longer > present in upstream? How would the branches =E2=80=9Caccumulate=E2=80=9D in the case git-fetch(= 1) is given an explicit list of them to follow? >> especially given that I=E2=80=99m already aware that a. some of the obj= ects >> may be used elsewhere (and thus such an operation would be >> potentially unsafe) and b. the packs received from the remote are >> likely to contain a mix of Git objects belonging to both removed and >> extant branches, > Why would they? Because the development happens in several branches in parallel? >> and it would thus /not/ be possible to remove them anyway? >> And as for repacking such a mirror from time to time, =E2=80=94 it=E2= =80=99s going >> to be a sure nuisance due to backup reasons, etc. > Uh, it's going to get repacked anyway. Git does that without asking. =E2=80=A6 Unless disabled with gc.auto =3D 0, gc.autopacklimit =3D 0. >>> Even without -p, references in frequently rewritten work branches >>> (like Git's pu or next branches) will disappear eventually. >> Do fast-forward updates (which git-fetch(1) defaults to) ever result >> in dangling Git objects? > Maybe it would be worth checking the man pages before making such > statements. It's just annoying when people spray arbitrary > statements to the list and leave it to others to clean up. > git-fetch does not merge in any manner and consequently also does not > "fast-forward". It updates references after making them backed by > the respective objects. You are confusing this with the git-pull > action of updating a local branch based on a remote-tracking branch. Well, would you then care to explain the wording of the Git error message below? + git fetch -t origin master:master >From git://github.com/XXX/XXX ! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward) Not to mention that git-fetch(1) explicitly uses this same term (as of Git 2.1.4.) I do not generally support the opinion that Git terminology is confusing, but I find it quite possible that it may sometimes be inconsistent at best. Maybe it=E2=80=99s just such a case. > There is a very limited situation when using explicit branch names > for source and target branch where git-fetch will only update a > reference to a non-descendant when given the option -f. Yes. [=E2=80=A6] >> Also, I=E2=80=99m typically interested in mirroring just a few branches >> (mostly =E2=80=98master=E2=80=99 and the latest stable, if any.) Per m= y experience, >> such branches rarely (if ever) get =E2=80=9Crewritten.=E2=80=9D > "I'm typically interested in" is no base for promoting problematic > workflows since it violates the "do not use it unless you understand > what it does" dictum for the recipient of such a recipe. The whole idea behind this discussion is to clarify when --shared is reasonable, =E2=80=94 and when it isn=E2=80=99t. Isn=E2=80=99= t it? --=20 FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ =E2=80=A6 3013 B6A0= 230E 334A