Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #08; Tue, 31)

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:48:44 -0800

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <[email-masked]> writes:

> No objections. Does it fix a failed test? If not, should we add a test
> to record this side effect fix?

No, it was just "I tried this and it did not work" reported elsewhere, and
it is not v1.7.9 regression. Having seen a failure by a real user, having
a test would be a good idea to protect the fix from regressing.

I actually wish that the commit 9e58504 (clone: --branch=<branch> always
means refs/heads/<branch>, 2012-01-16) wasn't taken hostage to the earlier
changes that add new feature (addition of --single-branch and delaying of
the cloning before checking the remote HEAD); which would have been an
easier sell without violating the usual "no new features to maintenance
track".  And the thing is, I do not find this grave enough an issue that
deserves a separate implementation of a fix to be queued to maintenance
tracks.

> --mirror implies --bare in cmd_clone() if I read it correctly.

Yeah, what was I thinking... feeling stupid.

Thanks.