From: Jonathan del Strother <maillist@steelskies.com>
To: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] Making "git push [--force/--delete]" safer?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:06:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAF5DW8++sc2VYmdJEjbD_ue_wtDFj21vcyFzNWU0M+rAm2X0sQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALKQrge_REZKfds0T-owJOn2BvfLmHpk7yQeSog=yvofE_zKJQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 3 July 2013 11:00, Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:
>>> Overnight, it occured to me that --force-if-expected could be
>>> simplified by leveraging the existing --force option; for the above
>>> two examples, respectively:
>>>
>>> $ git push --force --expect
>>> # validate foo @ origin == @{upstream} before pushing
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> $ git push --force --expect=refs/original/foo my_remote HEAD:foo
>>> # validate foo @ my_remote == refs/original/foo before pushing
>>
>> First, on the name.
>>
>> I do not think either "--validate" or "--expect" is particularly a
>> good one. The former lets this feature squat on a good name that
>> covers a much broader spectrum, forbidding people from adding other
>> kinds of validation later. "--expect" is slightly less bad in that
>> sense; saying "we expect this" does imply "otherwise it is an
>> unexpected situation and we would fail", but the name still does not
>> feel ideal.
>>
>> What is the essense of compare-and-swap? Perhaps we can find a good
>> word by thinking that question through.
>>
>> To me, it is a way to implement a "lock" on the remote ref without
>> actually taking a lock (which would leave us open for a stale lock),
>> and this "lock"-ness is what we want in order to guarantee safety.
>>
>> So we could perhaps call it "--lockref"?
>>
>> I'll leave the name open but tentatively use this name in the
>> following, primarily to see how well it sits on the command line
>> examples.
>
> I agree that neither --expect nor --validate are very good. I also
> don't like --lockref, mostly because there is no locking involved, and
> I think most users will jump to an incorrect conclusion about what
> this option does, unless they read the documentation.
>
> Some other suggestions:
>
> a) --update-if. I think this reads quite nicely in the fully specified
> variant: --update-if=theirRefName:expectedValue, but it becomes more
> cryptic when defaults are assumed (i.e. --update-if without any
> arguments).
>
> b) --precond. This makes it clear that we're specifying a precondition
> on the push. Again, I think the fully specified version reads nicely,
> but it might seem a little cryptic when no arguments are given.
>
> c) --pre-verify, --pre-check are merely variations on (b), other
> variations include --pre-verify-ref or --pre-check-ref, making things
> more explicit at the cost of option name length.
I'm struggling to think of instances where I wouldn't want this
CAS-like behaviour. Wouldn't it be better to make it the default when
pushing, and allowing the current behaviour with "git push
--blind-force" or something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-03 11:48 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 [this message]
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
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=CAF5DW8++sc2VYmdJEjbD_ue_wtDFj21vcyFzNWU0M+rAm2X0sQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=maillist@steelskies.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=johan@herland.net \
/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).