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 23:11:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E1C27B.7070705@kdbg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vr4f2gr4m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 13.07.2013 22:08, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Another issue I have with the proposal is that we close the door to
> "force only this one" convenience we have with "+ref" vs "--force
> ref". Assuming that it is useful to require lockref while still
> making sure that the usual "must fast-forward" rule is followed (if
> that is not the case, I do not see a reason why your proposal is any
> useful---am I missing something?),
The ability to express "require both fast-forward and --lockref" is just
an artefact of the independence of fast-forward-ness and --lockref in my
proposal. It is not something that I think is absolutely necessary.
> I would prefer to allow users a
> way to decorate this basic syntax to say:
>
> git push --lockref master jch pu
>
> things like
>
> (1) pu may not fast-forward and please override that "must
> fast-forward" check from it, while still keeping the lockref
> safety (e.g. "+pu" that does not --force, which is your
> proposal);
That must be a misunderstanding. In my proposal
git push --lockref +pu
would do what you need here. I don't know where you get the idea that
these two
git push --lockref +pu
git push +pu
would be different with regard to non-fast-forward-ness. The table
entries were correct.
[Please do not use the option name "--force" in the discussion unless
you mean "all kinds of safety off".]
> (2) any of them may not fast-forward and please override that "must
> fast-forward" check from it, while still keeping the lockref
> safety (without adding "--allow-no-ff", I do not see how it is
> possible with your proposal, short of forcing user to add "+"
> everywhere);
The point of my proposal is to force users to add + when they want to
allow non-fast-forward. Usually, this is shorter to type anyway than to
insert --force or --allow-no-ff in the command.
>
> (3) I know jch does not fast-forward so please override the "must
> fast-forward", but still apply the lockref safety, pu may not
> even satisfy lockref safety so please force it (as the "only
> force this one" semantics is removed from "+", I do not see how
> it is possible with your proposal).
I think
git push --lockref=jch +jch +pu
would do.
> The semantics the posted patch (rerolled to allow "--force" push
> anything) implements lets "--lockref" to imply "--allow-no-ff" and
> that makes it much simpler; we do not have to deal with any of the
> above complexity.
But see my other post, where this hurts users who have a fast-forward
push refspec configured.
> [Footnote]
>
> *1* The assurance --lockref gives is a lot stronger than "must
> fast-forward".
...
> If your change were not a rebase but to build one of you own:
>
> o---o----o----o----o----X---Y
>
> your "git push --lockref=topic:X Y:X" still requires the tip is
> at X. If somebody rewound the tip to X~2 in the meantime
> (because they decided the tip 2 commits were not good), your
> "git push Y:X" without the "--lockref" will lose their rewind,
> because Y will still be a fast-forward update of X~2.
> "--lockref=topic:X" will protect you in this case as well.
Good point.
> So I think "--lockref" that automatically disables "must
> fast-forward" check is the right thing to do, as we are
> replacing the weaker "must fast-forward" with something
> stronger.
But I do not share this conclusion. My conclusion is that your proposal
replaces one kind of check with a very different kind of check.
> I do not think we are getting anything from forcing
> the user to say "--allow-no-ff" with "+ref" syntax when the
> user says "--lockref".
Is this the same misunderstanding? My proposal does not require
--allow-no-ff with +ref syntax when --lockref is used.
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-13 21:11 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 [this message]
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=51E1C27B.7070705@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).