Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> OK. I was assuming that you'd have just integrated before starting such
> a rebase, but I guess that doesn't have to be the case.
>
> I agree that probably makes the multiple-operation stuff go away, which
> is nice. It does raise the question of when the integration point
> happens, and how we handle alternate paths through which commits may
> land in a local branch (e.g., if both you and upstream do a ff-merge of
> a particular branch).
Are you talking about the case where the user doesn't say git pull, but
instead says "git fetch && git merge --ff @{u}"? Just so that I
understand the concern.
> I think that would probably just end up with extra
> failures though (so erring on the side of caution).
Yes, and I think this is a very important decision in general.
--
Stefan Haller
Berlin, Germany
http://www.haller-berlin.de/