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