On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:36:35PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > or what would happen if the packfile
> > fetch failed (we'd already have deleted the old refs, but wouldn't fetch
> > the new ones).
>
> Off topic, but this sounds like a bug to me. We could have kept ref
> update more consistent
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> I think the documentation should be updated either way. This is not
> about the ordering in the status table, but rather about the order of
> the real operations. The user may care about that ordering if they want
> to know what
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> This was changed in 10a6cc8 (fetch --prune: Run prune before
> fetching, 2014-01-02), but it seems that nobody in that
> discussion realized we were advertising the "after"
> explicitly.
Ah... ok. Good to know it's moved up top
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:14:36PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> > This was changed in 10a6cc8 (fetch --prune: Run prune before
>> > fetching, 2014-01-02),
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:14:36PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > This was changed in 10a6cc8 (fetch --prune: Run prune before
> > fetching, 2014-01-02), but it seems that nobody in that
> > discussion realized we were
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> This was changed in 10a6cc8 (fetch --prune: Run prune before
> fetching, 2014-01-02), but it seems that nobody in that
> discussion realized we were advertising the "after"
> explicitly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King
6 matches
Mail list logo