Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > Am 12.07.2013 00:14, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: >> >>> Again: Why not just define +refspec as the way to achieve this check? >> >> What justification do we have to break existing people's >> configuration that says something like: >> >> [remote "ko"] >> url = kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git >> push = master >> push = next >> push = +pu >> push = maint >> >> by adding a _new_ requirement they may not be able to satisify? >> Notice that the above is a typical "push only" publishing point, >> where you do not need any remote tracking branches. > > Why would it break? When you do not specify --lockref, there is no > change whatsoever.
I thought your suggestion "Why not just define +pu as the way to achieve _THIS_ check?" was to make +pu to mean git push ko --lockref pu which would mean "check refs/remotes/ko/pu and make sure the remote side still is at that commit". If that is not what you meant, please clarify what _THIS_ is. -- 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