Message ID | 20130108184920.GA1258@quad.lixom.net |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > A slightly larger delta than I'd ideally want by now, in part due to some > of the OMAP PM fixes that's adding a bit of code. I decided to include > it instead of push it to 3.9, but from here on out we'll be stricter. Ugh. Not only that, but: > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git fixes you have both a branch called "fixes" and a tag called "fixes". Ambiguous. And when you ask me to pull like the above, it actually picks the branch, not the tag. Don't do this. Either use the unambiguous name ("tags/fixes" rather than just "fixes") or don't push out branches and tags that have the same name. Linus
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> >> A slightly larger delta than I'd ideally want by now, in part due to some >> of the OMAP PM fixes that's adding a bit of code. I decided to include >> it instead of push it to 3.9, but from here on out we'll be stricter. > > Ugh. Not only that, but: > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git fixes > > you have both a branch called "fixes" and a tag called "fixes". > Ambiguous. And when you ask me to pull like the above, it actually > picks the branch, not the tag. > > Don't do this. Either use the unambiguous name ("tags/fixes" rather > than just "fixes") or don't push out branches and tags that have the > same name. I switched from the latter to the former a while back, and should probably switch back. What happened in this case is that the tag hadn't mirrored out from ra yet, so git request-pull fell back to the branch name instead and I didn't notice. :( A non-ambiguous name will still fall back to the branch name instead of the (differently named) tag, but it'll be easier to catch when I check the pull request contents before sending it. Or maybe a better solution is to make git request-pull throw an error if there is a local signed tag for the request, but none is found on the server (or has different contents). I'll take a look at that. -Olof
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > Or maybe a better solution is to make git request-pull throw an error > if there is a local signed tag for the request, but none is found on > the server (or has different contents). I'll take a look at that. A-HA! Git does that as of 1.7.11.2 / 1.7.12, my version was just a little too old. -Olof