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 22:17:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E1B5DB.9080904@kdbg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vwqougwec.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 13.07.2013 20:14, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:
>>> 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.
>
> But by going that route, you are making --lockref _less_ useful, no?
>
> "git push topic" in no-ff/match case fails as it should. The whole
> purpose of "--lockref" is to make this case easier and safer than
> the today's system, where the anything-goes "--force" is the only
> way to make this push. We want to give a user who
>
> - rebased the topic, and
>
> - knows where the topic at the remote should be
>
> a way to say "I know I am pushing a no-ff, and I want to make sure
> the current value is this" in order to avoid losing somebody else's
> work queued on top of the topic at the remote while he was rebasing.
>
> You _CAN_ introduce a new --allow-no-ff at the same time and fail a
> no-ff/match push:
>
> git push --lockref topic
>
> and then allow it back with:
>
> git push --lockref --allow-no-ff topic
> git push --lockref +topic ;# +topic is now --allow-no-ff topic
>
> but why _SHOULD_ we? As soon as the user _says_ --lockref, the user
> is telling us he is pushing a no-ff. If that is not the case, the
> user can push without --lockref in the first place.
>
> The only potential thing you are gaining with such a change is that
> you are allowing people to say "this will fast-forward _and_ the I
> know the current value; if either of these two assumptions is
> violated, please fail this push".
>
> If "--lockref" automatically implies "--allow-no-ff" (the design in
> the reposted patch), you cannot express that combination. But once
> you use "--lockref" in such a situation , for the push to succeed,
> you know that the push replaces not just _any_ ancestor of what you
> are pushing, but replaces the exact current value. So I do not think
> your implicit introduction of --allow-no-ff via redefining the
> semantics of the plus prefix is not adding much value (if any),
> while making the common case less easy to use.
>
>> No; --lockref only adds the check that the destination is at the
>> expected revision, but does *NOT* override the no-ff check.
>
> You _could_ do it in that way, but that is less useful.
All you have been saying is that you find your
git push --lockref there topic
is more useful than my
git push --lockref there +topic
You are trading crystal clear semantics to save users ONE character to
type. IMO, it's a bad deal.
The crystal clear semantics would be:
- to override no-ff safety, use +refspec;
- to override "mismatch" safety, do not use --lockref/use --no-lockref;
- do not use --force unless you know the consequences.
I actually think that by implying allow-no-ff in --lockref, you are
hurting users who have configured a push refspec without a + prefix:
They suddenly do not get the push denied when it is not a fast-forward
anymore. For example, when you have
[remote "ko"]
push = master
push = +pu
and you accidentally rewound master before the point that is already
published, then
git push --lockref ko
will happily push the rewound master.
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-13 20:17 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
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 [this message]
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=51E1B5DB.9080904@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).