From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95051F462 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728145AbfG2W3C (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:29:02 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:54866 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727202AbfG2W3C (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:29:02 -0400 Received: (qmail 29179 invoked by uid 109); 29 Jul 2019 22:29:02 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:29:02 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 1615 invoked by uid 111); 29 Jul 2019 22:30:39 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:30:39 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:29:01 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Christopher Head , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Push force-with-lease with multi-URL remote Message-ID: <20190729222900.GA8665@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190727095440.1aac3b3c@amdahl.home.chead.ca> <20190729102009.GC2755@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190729192040.GD14943@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:44:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Hmm, true. I'd almost argue that --force-with-lease, at least in its > > default mode with no explicit lease source specified, should allow an > > update from X to Y to be a successful noop if the remote "somehow" > > already moved to Y. > > I've already written the --force-with-lease that expects what you > have on your remote-tracking branch off as a gross misdesign that > should be deprecated in the longer term; I do not have a strong > opinion on the tweaks to be done to the feature until it gets > dropped ;-) Well, that part I certainly agree with. ;) -Peff