git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
Cc: Drew Northup <n1xim.email@gmail.com>,
	Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>,
	Angelo Borsotti <angelo.borsotti@gmail.com>,
	Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>,
	Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>,
	git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git push tags
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:35:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121029213508.GB20513@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121029172330.GC8359@camk.edu.pl>

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Kacper Kornet wrote:

> > That patch just blocks non-forced updates to refs/tags/. I think a saner
> > start would be to disallow updating non-commit objects without a force.
> > We already do so for blobs and trees because they are not (and cannot
> > be) fast forwards. The fact that annotated tags are checked for
> > fast-forward seems to me to be a case of "it happens to work that way"
> > and not anything planned. Since such a push drops the reference to the
> > old version of the tag, it should probably require a force.
> 
> I'm not sure. Looking at 37fde87 ("Fix send-pack for non-commitish
> tags.") I have an impression that Junio allowed for fast-forward pushes
> of annotated tags on purpose.

Hmm. You're right, though I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning of
that commit. I'd certainly like to get Junio's input on the subject.

> > Then on top of that we can talk about what lightweight tags should do.
> > I'm not sure. Following the regular fast-forward rules makes some sense
> > to me, because you are never losing objects. But there may be
> > complications with updating tags in general because of fetch's rules,
> > and we would be better off preventing people from accidentally doing so.
> > I think a careful review of fetch's tag rules would be in order before
> > making any decision there.
> 
> The problem with the current behaviour is, that one can never be 100% sure
> that his push will not overwrite someone else tag.

Yes, although you do know that you are not throwing away history if you
do (because it must be a fast forward). Whereas if you have to use "-f"
to update a tag, then you have turned off all safety checks. So it is an
improvement for one case (creating a tag), but a regression for another
(updating an existing tag). I agree that the latter is probably less
common, but how much? If virtually nobody is doing it because git-fetch
makes the fetching side too difficult, then the regression is probably
not a big deal.

-Peff

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-29 21:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-25  6:58 git push tags Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-25 17:19 ` Drew Northup
2012-10-25 19:05   ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-25 21:16     ` Drew Northup
2012-10-26  6:42       ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-26 13:37         ` Drew Northup
2012-10-26 13:59           ` Chris Rorvick
2012-10-26 14:13             ` Drew Northup
2012-10-26 14:23               ` Chris Rorvick
2012-10-26 15:23           ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-26 17:42       ` Kacper Kornet
2012-10-26 18:07         ` Drew Northup
2012-10-26 18:20           ` Kacper Kornet
2012-10-26 18:35             ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-26 19:00               ` Kacper Kornet
2012-10-26 19:08                 ` Drew Northup
2012-10-28 18:15 ` Johannes Sixt
2012-10-28 19:59   ` Chris Rorvick
2012-10-28 21:49     ` Philip Oakley
2012-10-28 23:58       ` Drew Northup
2012-10-29  2:15       ` Chris Rorvick
2012-10-29  7:13       ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-29  8:12         ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-29  9:58           ` Michael Haggerty
2012-10-29 10:38             ` Jeff King
2012-10-29 11:21               ` Drew Northup
2012-10-29 11:31                 ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-29 11:35                 ` Jeff King
2012-10-29 12:25                   ` Drew Northup
2012-10-29 13:24                   ` Angelo Borsotti
2012-10-29 17:23                   ` Kacper Kornet
2012-10-29 21:35                     ` Jeff King [this message]
2012-10-30 17:09                       ` Chris Rorvick
     [not found]                         ` <CAB9Jk9CC9wjeyggejkVjKgY2HGAFw70hJo-S0S-W-p4gnd2zug@mail.gmail.com>
2012-10-30 19:11                           ` Chris Rorvick
2012-10-29 10:10           ` Kacper Kornet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20121029213508.GB20513@sigill.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=angelo.borsotti@gmail.com \
    --cc=chris@rorvick.com \
    --cc=draenog@pld-linux.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
    --cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
    --cc=n1xim.email@gmail.com \
    --cc=philipoakley@iee.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).