On 07/09/2013 09:53 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>
> Documentation/git-push.txt | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> index f7dfe48..e7c8bd6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> 'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [-n | --dry-run]
> [--repo=<repository>] [-f | --force] [--prune] [-v | --verbose] [-u
> | --set-upstream]
> + [--lockref[=<refname>[:[<expect>]]]]
> [--no-verify] [<repository> [<refspec>...]]
> @@ -146,6 +147,31 @@ already exists on the remote side.
> to the `master` branch). See the `<refspec>...` section above
> for details.
> + When updating <refname> at the remote, make sure that the
> + ref currently points at <expect> (an object name), and else
> + fail the push, even if `--force` is specified. If only
> + <refname> is given, the expected value is taken from the
> + remote-tracking branch that holds the last-observed value of
> + the <refname>. <expect> given as an empty string means the
> + <refname> should not exist and this push must be creating
> + it. If `--lockref` (without any value) is given, make sure
> + each ref this push is going to update points at the object
> + our remote-tracking branch for it points at.
I thought that the explanation in your patch 4/7 log message was
clearer. In particular, I think that documenting the forms separately,
as you did in the log message, makes it unambiguous, whereas for example
the distinction in prose between "If only <refname> is given" and
"<expect> given as an empty string" is easy to miss.
Does "--lockref" only apply to references that need non-ff updates, or
to all references that are being pushed? This is mostly interesting for
the zero-argument form (especially if a config option is invented to
make this the default), but the question should also be answered for the
> +This is meant to make `--force` safer to use. Imagine that you have
> +to rebase what you have already published. You will have to
> +`--force` the push to replace the history you originally published
> +with the rebased history. If somebody else built on top of your
> +original history while you are rebasing, the tip of the branch at
> +the remote may advance with her commit, and blindly pushing with
> +`--force` will lose her work. By using this option to specify that
> +you expect the history you are updating is what you rebased and want
> +to replace, you can make sure other people's work will not be losed
> +by a forced push. in such a case.
s/push./push/ or s/in such a case.//
> This option is only relevant if no <repository> argument is
> passed in the invocation. In this case, 'git push' derives the
Another minor point: "git update-ref" allows either 40 "0" or the empty
string to check that the ref doesn't already exist. For consistency it
might be nice to accept 40 "0" here as well.
I still really like the idea of the feature.
The name "--lockref" is OK, but for me it's less a question of
"locking", because as far as the user is concerned the push is an atomic
operation so there is no sense of a "lock" that is being held for a
finite period of time. For me it is more a question of "checking" or
"verifying". I see that the word "verify" already has a meaning for
this command, so maybe "--checkref" or "--checkold" or "--checkoldref"?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html