From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7281E1F66F for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 21:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731388AbgKIVUW (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 16:20:22 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:60010 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731035AbgKIVUU (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 16:20:20 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C88FE81B; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 16:20:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=C0X1e5IFQW5KRmOfAddO6AsFUSY=; b=FgW78D WrR9CV2ytS46qiYoceS1+/Yc5sGpp/C0csH1aYzi0Ua0RBxEcj4fGOdZzxskrrJq w3oBFiJk7c4zMY9y/h9LCfBazYUciqZR4yPf83Oi/VazivkVP0ElMcWGuV9QUpLK nUBviX9X1yBialUsilOv1JK3E4IUomj6gOeHs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=vPodqpknf5BSB7E6lAiR6r7sK+oG/2tc tRdZQMY2mgJhv/xObYlxuwZl+OZ9k2puCPWh7YDZrR2QPFjhUmkNDu6QT53m0vAw 04HfBtch0LvasI5/IsMyqP8DYjJRV1qtatI0Fs+ltABNmiKDbsbJgTYegZmGGlZ3 MEWlvzWG+yE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE01AFE81A; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 16:20:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D00AFE819; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 16:20:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: peff@peff.net, jrnieder@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, newren@gmail.com, stolee@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Doc: push with --base References: <20201109195630.2511149-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 13:20:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201109195630.2511149-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:56:30 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5C997DCE-22D1-11EB-9B32-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >> People expect that a single repository at their hosting sites can be >> used as the central meeting point for the project, just like CVS/SVN >> servers were in older world. "git push" would need to accept that >> reality and start common ancestor discovery eventually. > > Thanks for your reply (and everyone else's). I was thinking that a more > rudimentary form of the feature would suffice, since I wasn't expecting > much more need in the future, but looks like this isn't the case. I'll > be thinking of a more comprehensive idea. I said "eventually", meaning that we may not have to solve it immediately, but judging from the need for ad-hoc workarounds like sending older commits that are not necessarily at the tip of anything from the receiving end as if they are tips and then another ad-hoc workaround like this one, it seems that the need is real. Would the earlier refactoring of the negotiation part into a separate negotiator module help, or did the refactor not remove the deep assumption that it is only about the fetch/upload-pack traffic and we need a design for push/receive-pack from scratch? Thanks.