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 > [verse] > 'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [-n | --dry-run] > [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>] > [--repo=<repository>] [-f | --force] [--prune] [-v | --verbose] [-u > | --set-upstream] > + [--lockref[=<refname>[:[<expect>]]]] > [--no-verify] [<repository> [<refspec>...]] > > DESCRIPTION > @@ -146,6 +147,31 @@ already exists on the remote side. > to the `master` branch). See the `<refspec>...` section above > for details. > > +--lockref:: > +--lockref=<refname>:: > +--lockref=<refname>:<expect>:: > + 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 other forms. > +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 s/are/were/ > +the remote may advance with her commit, and blindly pushing with s/advance/have advanced/ > +`--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 s/losed/lost/ > +by a forced push. in such a case. s/push./push/ or s/in such a case.// > + > --repo=<repository>:: > 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. <bikeshed> 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"? </bikeshed> Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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