[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a40c5388-4274-6bfa-4213-6013601c8fae@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:44:07 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@...il.com>
Cc: git@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@...m.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] refs: tone down the dwimmery in refname_match() for
{heads,tags,remotes}/*
On 27/05/19 17:39, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not think lightweight vs annotated should be the issue. The
> tag that the requestor asks to be pulled (from repository ../b)
> should be what the requestor has locally when writing the request
> (in repository .). Even if both tags at remote and local are
> annotated, we should still warn if they are different objects, no?
Right, lightweight vs annotated then is the obvious special case where
one of the two is a commit and the other is a tag, hence they ought not
to have the same SHA1. I'll take a look.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists