On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Stefan Haller <haller@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > It might be possible to generate these lease tags prior to operations >> > which modify history and then maybe having a way to list them so you >> > can select which one you meant when you try to use force-with-lease.. >> >> So yeah, I think that is the more interesting direction. I hadn't >> considered resolving the multiple-operation ambiguity at push time. But >> I guess it would be something like "you did a rebase on sha1 X at time >> T, and then one on Y at time T+N", and you pick which one you're >> expecting. > > I think it's wrong to think about these leases as something that you > take before you start a rewindy operation. That's the wrong time to take > the lease; by that time, the remote tracking branch may already contain > new things that you haven't seen yet, so using that as a lease at that > time will overwrite those things later. You have to take the lease at a > time where you know that your local branch and the remote tracking > branch are up to date with each other, which is after pull and push. And > if you do that, there's no multiple-operation ambiguity to deal with at > all. Agreed. You "take" a lease whenever you push to the remote or when you pull from the remote and when you pull into the branch. It should store something that tracks both the branch and remote branch together so that you can generalize it to multiple remotes. It doesn't necessarily track perfectly with a branch that contains extra work such as when doing pull --rebase, but maybe you have an idea about that? Thanks, Jake > >> And I think that may be converging on the "integrate" refs that Stefan is >> talking about elsewhere (or some isomorphism of it). > > Does it make things clearer if we don't use the term "integrate", but > call the config value in my proposal simply "branch.*.lease"? > Yes, I think so. > > -- > Stefan Haller > Ableton > http://www.ableton.com/