Am 13.07.2013 20:14, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: >>> Your table above makes this fail: >>> >>> git push --lockref topic >>> >>> and the user has to force it, >> >> Of course. >> >>> like this? >>> >>> git push --lockref --force topic ;# or alternatively >>> git push --lockref +topic >>> >>> Why is it even necessary? > >> Because it is no-ff. How do you achieve the push today (without >> --lockref)? You use one of these two options. It does not change with >> --lockref. > > But by going that route, you are making --lockref _less_ useful, no? > > "git push topic" in no-ff/match case fails as it should. The whole > purpose of "--lockref" is to make this case easier and safer than > the today's system, where the anything-goes "--force" is the only > way to make this push. We want to give a user who > > - rebased the topic, and > > - knows where the topic at the remote should be > > a way to say "I know I am pushing a no-ff, and I want to make sure > the current value is this" in order to avoid losing somebody else's > work queued on top of the topic at the remote while he was rebasing. > > You _CAN_ introduce a new --allow-no-ff at the same time and fail a > no-ff/match push: > > git push --lockref topic > > and then allow it back with: > > git push --lockref --allow-no-ff topic > git push --lockref +topic ;# +topic is now --allow-no-ff topic > > but why _SHOULD_ we? As soon as the user _says_ --lockref, the user > is telling us he is pushing a no-ff. If that is not the case, the > user can push without --lockref in the first place. > > The only potential thing you are gaining with such a change is that > you are allowing people to say "this will fast-forward _and_ the I > know the current value; if either of these two assumptions is > violated, please fail this push". > > If "--lockref" automatically implies "--allow-no-ff" (the design in > the reposted patch), you cannot express that combination. But once > you use "--lockref" in such a situation , for the push to succeed, > you know that the push replaces not just _any_ ancestor of what you > are pushing, but replaces the exact current value. So I do not think > your implicit introduction of --allow-no-ff via redefining the > semantics of the plus prefix is not adding much value (if any), > while making the common case less easy to use. > >> No; --lockref only adds the check that the destination is at the >> expected revision, but does *NOT* override the no-ff check. > > You _could_ do it in that way, but that is less useful.
All you have been saying is that you find your git push --lockref there topic is more useful than my git push --lockref there +topic You are trading crystal clear semantics to save users ONE character to type. IMO, it's a bad deal. The crystal clear semantics would be: - to override no-ff safety, use +refspec; - to override "mismatch" safety, do not use --lockref/use --no-lockref; - do not use --force unless you know the consequences. I actually think that by implying allow-no-ff in --lockref, you are hurting users who have configured a push refspec without a + prefix: They suddenly do not get the push denied when it is not a fast-forward anymore. For example, when you have [remote "ko"] push = master push = +pu and you accidentally rewound master before the point that is already published, then git push --lockref ko will happily push the rewound master. -- Hannes -- 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