From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 08:52:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E0F93A.8050201@kdbg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vy59biih4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 12.07.2013 23:19, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:
>
>> We have three independent options that the user can choose in any
>> combination:
>>
>> o --force given or not;
>>
>> o --lockref semantics enabled or not;
>>
>> o refspec with or without +;
>>
>> and these two orthogonal preconditions of the push
>>
>> o push is fast-forward or it is not ("ff", "noff");
>>
>> o the branch at the remote is at the expected rev or it is not
>> ("match", "mismatch").
>>
>> Here is a table with the expected outcome. "ok" means that the push is
>> allowed(*), "fail" means that the push is denied. (Four more lines with
>> --force are omitted because they have "ok" in all spots.)
>>
>> ff noff ff noff
>> match match mismatch mismatch
>>
>> --lockref +refspec ok ok denied denied
>> --lockref refspec ok denied denied denied
>
> I am confused with these. The latter is the most typical:
>
> git fetch
> git checkout topic
> git rebase topic
> git push --lockref topic
>
> where we know it is "noff" already, and we just want to make sure
> that nobody mucked with our remote while we are rebasing.
Today (without --lockref), the above sequence would fail to push.
(Because there is no + and no --force.)
> If nobody updated the remote, why should this push be denied? And in
> order to make it succeed, you need to force with +refspec or --force,
> but that would bypass match/mismatch safety, which makes the whole
> "make sure the other end is unchanged" safety meaningless, no?
I am suggesting that +refspec would *not* override the match/mismatch
safety, but --force would.
>
>> +refspec ok ok ok ok
>
> This is traditional --force.
>
>> refspec ok denied ok denied
>
> We are not asking for --lockref, so match/mismatch does not affect
> the outcome.
I think you are worried that a deviation from the principle that
+refspec == --force hurts current users. But I am arguing that this is
not the case because "current" users do not use --lockref. As you have
seen from the table, without --lockref there is *no change* in behavior.
I still have not seen an example where +refspec != --force would have
unexpected consequences. (The inequality is merely that +refspec fails
on mismatch when --lockref was also given while --force does not.)
>> Notice that without --lockref semantics enabled, +refspec and refspec
>> keep the current behavior.
>
> But I do not think the above table with --lockref makes much sense.
>
> Let's look at noff/match case. That is the only interesting one.
>
> This should fail:
>
> git push topic
>
> due to no-ff.
Yes.
> Your table above makes this fail:
>
> git push --lockref topic
>
> and the user has to force it,
Of course.
> like this?
>
> git push --lockref --force topic ;# or alternatively
> git push --lockref +topic
>
> Why is it even necessary?
Because it is no-ff. How do you achieve the push today (without
--lockref)? You use one of these two options. It does not change with
--lockref.
> If you make
>
> git push --lockref topic
>
> succeed in noff/match case, everything makes more sense to me.
Not to me, obviously ;)
> The --lockref option is merely a weaker form of --force but still a
> way to override the noff check.
No; --lockref only adds the check that the destination is at the
expected revision, but does *NOT* override the no-ff check. Why should
it? (This is not a rethoric question.)
(I think I said differently in an earlier messages, but back then things
were still blurry. The table in my previous message is what I mean.)
> If the user wants to keep noff
> check, the user can simply choose not to use the option.
No. If the user wants to keep the no-ff check, she does not use the + in
the refspec and does not use --force. (Just like today.)
> Of course, that form should fail if "mismatch". And then you can
> force it,
>
> git push --force [--lockref] topic
>
> As "--force" is "anything goes", it does not matter if you give the
> other option on the command line.
... or the + in the refsepc.
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-13 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-02 20:57 [RFD] Making "git push [--force/--delete]" safer? Junio C Hamano
2013-07-02 22:55 ` Johan Herland
2013-07-03 6:34 ` Johan Herland
2013-07-03 8:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-03 10:00 ` Johan Herland
2013-07-03 10:06 ` Jonathan del Strother
2013-07-03 10:11 ` Johan Herland
2013-07-03 10:50 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-07-03 12:06 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-03 19:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-04 5:37 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-04 5:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-03 19:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-03 20:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-03 19:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 0/7] safer "push --force" with compare-and-swap Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 1/7] cache.h: move remote/connect API out of it Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 2/7] builtin/push.c: use OPT_BOOL, not OPT_BOOLEAN Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 3/7] push: beginning of compare-and-swap "force/delete safety" Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 4/7] remote.c: add command line option parser for --lockref Junio C Hamano
2013-07-16 22:13 ` John Keeping
2013-07-17 17:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-17 17:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 5/7] push --lockref: implement logic to populate old_sha1_expect[] Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 6/7] t5533: test "push --lockref" Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 19:53 ` [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 20:17 ` Aaron Schrab
2013-07-09 20:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 20:24 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-09 20:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 20:55 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-09 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 23:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-11 21:10 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-11 21:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-11 22:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12 17:21 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-12 17:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-12 20:00 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-12 21:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-13 6:52 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2013-07-13 18:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-13 20:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-13 21:11 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-14 14:28 ` John Keeping
2013-07-13 20:17 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-14 19:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-14 20:21 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-14 20:34 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-07-14 20:49 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-07-14 20:59 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-14 21:28 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-07-15 4:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-15 4:44 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-07-15 15:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-15 20:30 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-07-15 3:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-15 15:47 ` Default expectation of --lockref Junio C Hamano
2013-07-15 20:27 ` [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref Johannes Sixt
2013-07-09 21:37 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-07-09 20:27 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-07-09 20:42 ` Junio C Hamano
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=51E0F93A.8050201@kdbg.org \
--to=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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).