Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] push: update remote tags only with force

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> However, if instead of the rule being
> "blobs on the remote side cannot be replaced", if it becomes "the old
> value on the remote side must be referenced by what we replace it with",
> that _is_ something we can calculate reliably on the sending side.

Interesting.  I would have thought knowing reachability implied having
the old object in the sending repository.

> And
> that is logically an extension of the fast-forward rule, which is why I
> suggested placing it with ref_newer (but the latter should probably be
> extended to not suggest merging if we _know_ it is a non-commit object).

Sounds great, especially if it is not dependent on the sender actually
having the old object.  Until this is implemented, though, I don't
understand what was wrong with doing the checks in the
is_forwardable() helper function (of course after fixing the
regression/bug.)

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]