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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4A91F461 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728583AbfGKVNt (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:13:49 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:61352 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726880AbfGKVNt (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:13:49 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49556A181; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:13:46 -0400 (EDT) (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=gBO+bwOBCBfdJci3bwZzgVArWdg=; b=RkFc/L 2zUlVGmLaQl4xAeJvJYaAIjYZzihAILk0RkdlTtHWyOukVzad36g/w/uPz/XQHSY 7np2XdxnLPPGUr8jWUEWiGE0x5lpQArqk248hNQOjX34T08PsjKSgRr0uHWla2UF yOzhuqW/O3A/Tr+C7sXt81qpBcX7gOoZOb4xU= 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=NFpdprBmvgVRWA2T74x0/+wTtkp/3sED FHEZM5e+BbD2tfozzbRRmv9FpV996S7FbOv3eWP+Ta6bvWOt+NL5h8+9IlFtgoKf 7Jbq7qYb54ZgsWw7rd95iOmZNBk/NXf4Sb2X7JpDQg9vfls6IOWdxl83gRe8tb3Z SMljp5DTO/U= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE5A6A180; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:13:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (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 1BE0A6A17F; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] transport-helper: enforce atomic in push_refs_with_push References: <20190709211043.48597-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20190711205706.GD113966@google.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:13:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190711205706.GD113966@google.com> (Emily Shaffer's message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:57:06 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C3BC37DE-A420-11E9-BEDF-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Emily Shaffer writes: > Hmm. I'd like to argue that part of the requirement is to show the user > what happened; for example, in an earlier iteration I was not > successfully reporting the "collateral damage" refs to the user, even > though they were not being pushed. To that end, I'd rather check both. If we can afford to check both, making sure that we behave correctly and report what we did correctly would of course be the best. ;-)