On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "HEAD should resolve as a tag" is not sensible, but "HEAD should
> locally DWIM to something sensible" is still possible, no?
I disagree. Why? Because what you have locally is *not* necessarily
the same thing you have remotely.
And that's *exactly* why people used to send me broken pull requests.
"git pull-request" would guess on things, and it would get the guesses
wrong, and write the pull request wrong.
> We could for example make the rule for unset $3 case like this:
> instead of the current "missing $3 is a request to pull HEAD":
>
> If you have one and only one signed tag that happens to point at
> the commit sitting at HEAD, behave as if that tag was given as
> the third argument from the command line.
If you verify that "one and only" to be true both locally and
remotely, then I guess I would be ok with it. But it really would have
to be unique. And truly unique, as in no confusion about branches or
tags, only one or the other. Because the "tag vs branch" was one of
the main sources of confusion that made me repeatedly get bad pull
requests, particularly when there was something locally that wasn't
actually named the same thing remotely.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
