Thanks Josh... apparently I still don't understand the git docs.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I think everything should be back to normal. In summary, no one > force-pushed to the repository, but the introduction of new commits on > an old version of a branch that was deleted on the server appears > identical to a force-push if your copy of the branch was newer. > > * I restored some of the old branches that Eric's push nuked > (ACCUMULO-652 and ACCUMULO-CURATOR) > * Re-deleted old branches corresponding to versions that have been > released or abandoned ({1.4.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.6.0}-SNAPSHOT) > * cherry-picked the change from ACCUMULO-3157 from the 1.5.2-SNAPSHOT > branch to the 1.5.3-SNAPSHOT branch. > > Please be careful when you push things, especially when using any > option which is destructive on the server (e.g. --prune). It's good > practice to use the -n option to git-push to make sure that you're > actually doing what you *think* you're about to do. > > - Josh > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, this wasn't a force push, it just appears like one because > > 1.5.2-SNAPSHOT was removed after 1.5.2 was released and then Eric applied > > new changes on top of an old version of 1.5.2-SNAPSHOT. > > > > I'm working on figuring out what's going on. Please, everyone, hold off > on > > commits for a moment.. > > > > > > On 9/22/14, 4:16 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> > >> I see 1.5.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT just got forced updates. > >> > >> * [new branch] 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT -> origin/1.4.5-SNAPSHOT > >> * [new branch] 1.5.1-SNAPSHOT -> origin/1.5.1-SNAPSHOT > >> + 019ff0a...9167993 1.5.2-SNAPSHOT -> origin/1.5.2-SNAPSHOT (forced > >> update) > >> * [new branch] 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT -> origin/1.6.0-SNAPSHOT > >> 7ee8628..65be6dc 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT -> origin/1.6.1-SNAPSHOT > >> + c7269de...2f68e07 1.6.2-SNAPSHOT -> origin/1.6.2-SNAPSHOT (forced > >> update) > >> 16ec519..79eb145 master -> origin/master > >> > >> This is a really big no-no-no. I'll be trying to figure out what > >> happened and restore history... >
