From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:55:28 +0200 Message-ID: <51DC78C0.9030202@kdbg.org> References: <7vfvvwk7ce.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <1373399610-8588-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1373399610-8588-8-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <51DC7199.2050302@kdbg.org> <7vhag3v59o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 09 22:55:36 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Uwewg-0003jo-RO for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:55:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752741Ab3GIUzb (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:55:31 -0400 Received: from bsmtp1.bon.at ([213.33.87.15]:3143 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751945Ab3GIUza (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:55:30 -0400 Received: from dx.sixt.local (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6190313004A; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.sixt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA22319F611; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:55:28 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <7vhag3v59o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 09.07.2013 22:37, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> Am 09.07.2013 21:53, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >>> +--lockref:: >>> +--lockref=:: >>> +--lockref=::: >>> ... >>> +This is meant to make `--force` safer to use. >> >> This is a contradiction. "--force" means "I mean it, dude", and not "I >> mean it sometimes". It would make sense if this sentence were "This is >> meant to make `+refspec` safer to use." > > No, this *IS* making --force safer by letting you to say in addition > to --force alone which is blind, add --lockref to defeat it. > > I do not see any good reason to change the samentics of "+refspec" > for something like this. "+refspec" and "--force refspec" have > meant the same thing forever. So what? They still mean the same thing as long as --lockref is not used. > If --lockref adds safety to +refspec, > the same safety should apply to "--force refspec". No. --force means "I know what I am doing, no safety needed, thank you". By applying the safety to --force as well, you lose it as the obvious tool that overrides the safety. -- Hannes