Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Enhance core.logallrefupdates

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:15:06 +0200

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>>>    Come to think of it, it might make sense to change the
>>>    meaning of "true" to do what this patch does.  I do not think
>>>    of reasons to create missing reflog for tags automatically
>>>    anyway.
>>
>> If we change meaning of "true", perhaps (just in case in case) we
>> should add "all" value?
> 
> Didn't I just say that I do not think of reasons to do so ;-)?
> 
> Saying "just in case" is not enough.  You need to say at least
> "this hypothetical workflow which requires to update refs/xxx
> and doing automated reflog creation only under refs/heads makes
> that workflow less convenient".

If I remember correctly there was example of workflow which did
fetch remote heads to local tags. But I'm not sure if this reflog 
made sense with that workflow. 

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git