Angelo Borsotti angelo.borso...@gmail.com writes:
I am *not* convinced that the refs/tags/ is the only special
hierarchy whose contents should not move is a bad limitation we
should avoid, but if it indeed is a bad limitation, the above is one
possible way to think about avoiding it.
What
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:29:14AM -0600, Chris Rorvick wrote:
2. Require force when updating tag references, even on a fast-forward.
push: flag updates
push: flag updates that require force
push: update remote tags only with force
An email thread initiated by
Chris Rorvick ch...@rorvick.com writes:
Do not update, only add new may be a good feature, but at the same
time I have this suspicion that its usefulness may not necessarily
be limited to refs/tags/* hierarchy.
I dunno.
Are you suggesting allowing forwards for just refs/heads/*?
No, it is
Hi Junio,
actually, I proposed to add a key in config files, e.g.
pushTagsNoChange to be set in the remote repo do disallow changes to
tags, similar to pushNonFastForward that disallows non-fastforward
changes to branches. I still have the impression that this is simple
and clear, and allows the
Angelo Borsotti angelo.borso...@gmail.com writes:
actually, I proposed to add a key in config files, e.g.
pushTagsNoChange to be set in the remote repo do disallow changes to
tags, similar to pushNonFastForward that disallows non-fastforward
changes to branches. I still have the impression
Hi Junio,
That is an independent issue of deciding to accept or reject
receiving a push from outside, no?
Yes, it is. Actually I thought some means to let the owner do decide
what to accept were already present (the pushNonFastForward config
key), and going along this avenue I thought it could
Hi Junio,
I am *not* convinced that the refs/tags/ is the only special
hierarchy whose contents should not move is a bad limitation we
should avoid, but if it indeed is a bad limitation, the above is one
possible way to think about avoiding it.
What other hierarchy besides branches and tags
Chris Rorvick ch...@rorvick.com writes:
Minor changes since from v2 set. Reposting primarily because I mucked
up the Cc: list (again) and hoping to route feedback to the appropriate
audience.
This patch set can be divided into two sets:
1. Provide useful advice for rejected tag
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Chris Rorvick ch...@rorvick.com wrote:
Minor changes since from v2 set.
.
An email thread initiated by Angelo Borsotti did not come to a
consensus on how push should behave with regard to tag references.
Minor Nit: Without the link to gmane it
Minor changes since from v2 set. Reposting primarily because I mucked
up the Cc: list (again) and hoping to route feedback to the appropriate
audience.
This patch set can be divided into two sets:
1. Provide useful advice for rejected tag references.
push: return reject reasons via a
10 matches
Mail list logo
