John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:28:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > If there is no upstream information for a branch, it is likely that it >> > is newly created and can safely be pushed under the normal fast-forward >> > rules. Relax the --force-with-lease check so that we do not reject >> > these branches immediately but rather attempt to push them as new >> > branches, using the null SHA-1 as the expected value. >> > >> > In fact, it is already possible to push new branches using the explicit >> > --force-with-lease=<branch>:<expect> syntax, so all we do here is make >> > this behaviour the default if no explicit "expect" value is specified. >> >> I like the loss of an extra field from "struct ref". >> >> I suspect that the if/else cascade in the loop in apply_cas() can >> also be taught that ':' followed by an empty string asks to check >> that the target ref does not exist, in order to make it a bit more >> useful for folks who do not rely on the "use the last observed >> status of the tracking branch". >> >> That would make the "explicit" test much less cumbersome to read. > > Yes, that's nicer and it mirrors the syntax for deleting a remote > branch. > > I've pulled it out as a preparatory step because I like the fact that > the "explicit" test passes even before the patch that is the main point > of the series. Ah, our mails crossed ;-) Thanks, I'll read these three patches. -- 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