Re: Bug report: git clone with dest
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 22:39:10 +0100 (STD)
- From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug report: git clone with dest
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 09:22:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> > > Done: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1421
> > >
> > > I added credit to Jeff in the PR's description.
> > Sadly, the PR's description won't make it into the commit history, and the
> > authorship really should have been retained.
> > I found Peff's topic branch in his fork and force-pushed, to demonstrate
> > what I wanted to have. Currently the test suite is running (I test 64-bit
> > builds of the three major platforms Windows, macOS and Linux), and once
> > that is done and passed, I will merge the Pull Request.
> I think the discussion has ended at "don't do anything else", but note
> that Junio and I were musing on whether to update the series around the
> dir_exists() function.
I briefly looked over this discussion and got the same impression.
> Which would then create headaches for you later when you try to merge a
> subtly-different series that makes it upstream.
Subtly-different is not a big problem. It is typically solved by `git
rebase --skip` ;-)
> Like I said, I think we've resolved not to do anything, but I wanted to
> point out a potential pitfall with this kind of "pick up a topic early"
> strategy (I'm intimately familiar with this pitfall because I do it all
> the time for the fork we run on our servers at GitHub).
Thanks for your concern.
And not to worry, I have plenty of expertise, won over the years, in
dealing with subtly different variants of patches having been accepted
upstream and conflicting with patches that were carried in Git for