Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junio, maybe there should be some test-case for this:
error: Object 5dc01c595e6c6ec9ccda4f6f69c131c0dd945f8c is a tree, not a
commit
error: remote ref 'refs/tags/v2.6.11' is not a strict subset of local
ref 'refs/tags/v2.6.11'.
I assume this is syncing two linux-2.6 repo which both have the
same refs/tags/v2.6.11 (tree tag).
Sorry, in send_pack(), up-to-date check should be made first
before ref_newer() check. My mistake.
A more interesting question is what to do if they are indeed
different trees. More realistically, you may decide to
retroactively create a commit that wraps the same v2.6.11 tree,
perhaps grafting it in front of the current 2.6.12-rcX based
history, and replace 'refs/tags/v2.6.11' with a tag to that
commit. What should happen?
I do not have a good answer to that. From the end-user point of
view, we _could_ treat tags differently from heads in that we
always omit the ref_newer() check, but from the machinery point
of view, I think the plumbing should just ask the user to use
the --force when such a tag is involved.
diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c
--- a/send-pack.c
+++ b/send-pack.c
@@ -173,6 +173,10 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, in
char old_hex[60], *new_hex;
if (!ref-peer_ref)
continue;
+ if (!memcmp(ref-old_sha1, ref-peer_ref-new_sha1, 20)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, '%s': up-to-date\n, ref-name);
+ continue;
+ }
if (!is_zero_sha1(ref-old_sha1)) {
if (!has_sha1_file(ref-old_sha1)) {
error(remote '%s' object %s does not
@@ -188,10 +192,6 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, in
continue;
}
}
- if (!memcmp(ref-old_sha1, ref-peer_ref-new_sha1, 20)) {
- fprintf(stderr, '%s': up-to-date\n, ref-name);
- continue;
- }
memcpy(ref-new_sha1, ref-peer_ref-new_sha1, 20);
if (is_zero_sha1(ref-new_sha1)) {
error(cannot happen anymore);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
