git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Christopher Head <bugs@chead.ca>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Push force-with-lease with multi-URL remote
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:19:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa7cxl8od.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C021D654-ECD4-4A23-9DE0-D272C3A3D901@chead.ca> (Christopher Head's message of "Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:43:06 -0700")

Christopher Head <bugs@chead.ca> writes:

> On July 27, 2019 1:57:18 PM PDT, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
>>In the reverse direction, I think "git fetch" supports the notion of
>><group> of repositories, so that fetch from multiple remotes can be
>>initiated with a single command, but I am not sure if we added the
>>same <group> concept to the pushing side.
>>...

> If I understand what remote groups are (separate remotes but you
> can act on all of them with one command?) then they should be
> perfect. However it does not look like they work for
> pushing.

Yup, you are confirming what I already said ;-).

I do not offhand think of a fundamental reason why the <group>
concept should only apply to the fetching direction.  I am not sure
about a few design issues if we were to have "push" groups, though,
and somebody who wants to have the feature must think hard about.

Should the same <group> be usable for both fetching and pushing, or
should there be two separate and independent namespaces, one for
fetch groups and the other for push groups, so that the set of
repositories "git fetch groupA" fetches from could be configured to
be different from the set of repositories "git push groupA"?  It can
be argued for both ways, but I am unsure about the pros and cons.

How should the feature interact with push atomicity?  We obviously
would not want (and probably cannot afford) to arrange two or more
repositories coodinate by participating in two-phase commit etc., so
the best we could do may be to not even initiate push after seeing
a push to one destination fail, but there may be a better definition
people can come up with.



  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-29  5:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-27 16:54 Push force-with-lease with multi-URL remote Christopher Head
2019-07-27 17:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-27 18:15   ` Christopher Head
2019-07-27 20:57     ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-27 21:43       ` Christopher Head
2019-07-29  5:19         ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-07-29 10:20 ` Jeff King
2019-07-29 13:33   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-29 13:47     ` Christopher Head
2019-07-29 19:20     ` Jeff King
2019-07-29 21:44       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-29 22:29         ` Jeff King

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=xmqqa7cxl8od.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=bugs@chead.ca \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).