Am 13.07.2013 20:14, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Your table above makes this fail:
>>>
>>> git push --lockref topic
>>>
>>> and the user has to force it,
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>> like this?
>>>
>>> git push --lockref --force topic ;# or alternatively
>>> git push --lockref +topic
>>>
>>> Why is it even necessary?
>
>> Because it is no-ff. How do you achieve the push today (without
>> --lockref)? You use one of these two options. It does not change with
>> --lockref.
>
> But by going that route, you are making --lockref _less_ useful, no?
>
> "git push topic" in no-ff/match case fails as it should. The whole
> purpose of "--lockref" is to make this case easier and safer than
> the today's system, where the anything-goes "--force" is the only
> way to make this push. We want to give a user who
>
> - rebased the topic, and
>
> - knows where the topic at the remote should be
>
> a way to say "I know I am pushing a no-ff, and I want to make sure
> the current value is this" in order to avoid losing somebody else's
> work queued on top of the topic at the remote while he was rebasing.
>
> You _CAN_ introduce a new --allow-no-ff at the same time and fail a
> no-ff/match push:
>
> git push --lockref topic
>
> and then allow it back with:
>
> git push --lockref --allow-no-ff topic
> git push --lockref +topic ;# +topic is now --allow-no-ff topic
>
> but why _SHOULD_ we? As soon as the user _says_ --lockref, the user
> is telling us he is pushing a no-ff. If that is not the case, the
> user can push without --lockref in the first place.
>
> The only potential thing you are gaining with such a change is that
> you are allowing people to say "this will fast-forward _and_ the I
> know the current value; if either of these two assumptions is
> violated, please fail this push".
>
> If "--lockref" automatically implies "--allow-no-ff" (the design in
> the reposted patch), you cannot express that combination. But once
> you use "--lockref" in such a situation , for the push to succeed,
> you know that the push replaces not just _any_ ancestor of what you
> are pushing, but replaces the exact current value. So I do not think
> your implicit introduction of --allow-no-ff via redefining the
> semantics of the plus prefix is not adding much value (if any),
> while making the common case less easy to use.
>
>> No; --lockref only adds the check that the destination is at the
>> expected revision, but does *NOT* override the no-ff check.
>
> You _could_ do it in that way, but that is less useful.
All you have been saying is that you find your
git push --lockref there topic
is more useful than my
git push --lockref there +topic
You are trading crystal clear semantics to save users ONE character to
type. IMO, it's a bad deal.
The crystal clear semantics would be:
- to override no-ff safety, use +refspec;
- to override "mismatch" safety, do not use --lockref/use --no-lockref;
- do not use --force unless you know the consequences.
I actually think that by implying allow-no-ff in --lockref, you are
hurting users who have configured a push refspec without a + prefix:
They suddenly do not get the push denied when it is not a fast-forward
anymore. For example, when you have
[remote "ko"]
push = master
push = +pu
and you accidentally rewound master before the point that is already
published, then
git push --lockref ko
will happily push the rewound master.
-- Hannes
--
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