Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The <src> is often the name of the branch you would want to push, but
> -it can be any arbitrary "SHA-1 expression", such as `master~4` or
> -`HEAD` (see linkgit:gitrevisions[7]).
> +it can be any arbitrary expression to a commit, such as `master~4` or
> +`HEAD` (see linkgit:gitrevisions[7]). It can also refer to tag
> +objects, trees or blobs if the <dst> is outside of `refs/heads/*`.
"It can also refer to..." is a good addition, but do you really want
to make it part of this series to change/deprecate "SHA-1 expression"
(which would certainly involve discussion on "then what to call them
instead, now we are trying to refrain from saying SHA-1?")?
> +on the remote side. Whether this is allowed depends on where in
> +`refs/*` the <dst> reference lives. The `refs/heads/*` namespace will
> +only accept commit objects, and then only they can be
> +fast-forwarded. The `refs/tags/*` namespace will accept any kind of
> +object, and any changes to them and others types of objects will be
> +rejected. Finally, it's possible to push any type of object to any
> +namespace outside of `refs/{tags,heads}/*`,
All sound correct.
> but these will be treated
> +as branches for the purposes of whether `--force` is required, even in
> +the case where a tag object is pushed.
I am not sure what "will be treated as branches" exactly means.
Does it mean "as if they were in refs/heads/* hierarchy?" Or
something else?
> That tag object will be
> +overwritten by another tag object (or commit!) without `--force` if
> +the new tag happens to point to a commit that's a fast-forward of the
> +commit it replaces.
Yup, and that is something we want to fix with a later part of this
series.
> +By having the optional leading `+` to a refspec (or using `--force`
> +command line option) you can tell Git to update the <dst> ref even if
> +it is not allowed by its respective namespace clobbering rules (e.g.,
> +it is not a fast-forward. in the case of `refs/heads/*` updates).
This gives an impression that with "--force" you can put non-commit
inside refs/heads/* hierarchy. Is that correct (if so we probably
would want to fix that behaviour)?
> +This
> +does *not* attempt to merge <src> into <dst>. See EXAMPLES below for
> +details.
That is not wrong per-se, but would normal people expect a merge to
happen upon pushing on the other side, I wonder?
Thanks for cleaning up our longstanding mess.
