On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 10:01:01PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 06:27:03PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > Peff and I talked about this today, and neither of us could find any > > reasons not to pursue the approach listed in the footnote of > > > > <20250221072558.GA572877@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > , but this is a more conservative approach that should fix the issue and > > apply cleanly on top of 'maint'. It may be worth picking this into 2.49, > > even though we are already quite late into the -rc cycle, this is a > > fairly nasty bug. > > Yeah, I favor doing this simple fix first, and then trying the larger > (and slightly riskier) change on top. Yeah, definitely. I think fixing the issue immediately is the most important thing we can do, but cleaning up the code (once the immediate issue has been resolved) is also worth doing. > I started to write up that larger patch, and found a number of > interesting things. ;) So here's a 9-patch series, which would apply on > top of tb/fetch-follow-tags-fix (but can very much wait to cook in the > next development cycle). What?! You found other things to clean up along the way? Blasphemy. > builtin/fetch.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++------------------------- > refspec.c | 22 ++++++++++++++------ > t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 12 ++++++----- > t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) Kidding, of course, I am looking forward to reviewing it now. Thanks, Taylor
