On 6 July 2017 at 21:13, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> By that logic, a hypothetical update to `--force` that makes 1/3 of
> the attempted forced push randomly would make it safer than the
> current `--force`, wouldn't it?
It would. However, this additional safety is not really meaningful to any
workfl
Francesco Mazzoli writes:
> Moreover, it seems to me that the problem `--force-with-lease` is
> just one of marketing. `--force-with-lease` is strictly more "safe"
> than `--force` in the sense that it'll reject some pushes that `--force`
> will let through.
By that logic, a hypothetical update
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> The take-away lesson that the earlier thread gave me was that the
>> order in which the three options are ranked by their desirebility
>> in the UI (and the order we would like to enc
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> The take-away lesson that the earlier thread gave me was that the
> order in which the three options are ranked by their desirebility
> in the UI (and the order we would like to encourage users to use)
> is, from the most to the least preferrab
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 05 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>>>
>>> Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example
>>> of surprising --force-with-lease behavi
Francesco Mazzoli writes:
> So we would have something like
>
> * `push.disableForce`: config flag that disables `--force` and suggests
> `--force-with-lease` instead;
> * `--disable-force` and `--no-disable-force`, config flags to tune the above
> config parameter at will.
>
> What do yo
On Wed, Jul 05 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>>
>> Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example
>> of surprising --force-with-lease behavior that we do not want to
>> encourage?
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git
On 5 July 2017 at 09:43, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>>
>> Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example
>> of surprising --force-with-lease behavior that we do not want to
>> encourage?
>
> https://public-inbox.org/gi
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>
> Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example
> of surprising --force-with-lease behavior that we do not want to
> encourage?
https://public-inbox.org/git/1491617750.2149.10.ca...@mattmccutchen.net/
On 4 July 2017 at 19:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> People have been burned by the lazy "--force-with-lease" that does
> not say what object to expect there and forces the command to DWIM
> incorrectly what the remote's ref ought to be pointing at. This
> change encourages its use without the user b
Francesco Mazzoli writes:
> The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
> passing the config via the command line.
>
> Signed-off-by: Francesco Mazzoli
> ---
> Documentation/config.txt | 5 +
> builtin/push.c | 3 +++
> cache.h | 1 +
> config.c
On Mon, Jul 03 2017, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason jotted:
> On Mon, Jul 03 2017, Francesco Mazzoli jotted:
>
> A couple of things I didn't notice at first:
Oh and also, makes sense to add tests for this, see
t/t5533-push-cas.sh. I.e. just make sure the cases where the option
works work with the confi
On Mon, Jul 03 2017, Francesco Mazzoli jotted:
A couple of things I didn't notice at first:
> git_config(git_push_config, &flags);
> + if (push_always_force_with_lease) {
> + cas.use_tracking_for_rest = 1;
> + }
This should go in git_push_config.
> + if (!strcmp(v
The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
passing the config via the command line.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Mazzoli
---
Documentation/config.txt | 5 +
Documentation/git-push.txt | 4 +++-
builtin/push.c | 3 +++
cache.h| 1 +
config.c
On 3 July 2017 at 23:47, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 03 2017, Francesco Mazzoli jotted:
>
> > The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
> > passing the config via the command line.
>
> Thanks for hacking on this. A couple of things:
>
> * Most things (but no
On Mon, Jul 03 2017, Francesco Mazzoli jotted:
> The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
> passing the config via the command line.
Thanks for hacking on this. A couple of things:
* Most things (but not all) that configure `git whatevs --some-option`
are configurable vi
The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
passing the config via the command line.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Mazzoli
---
Documentation/config.txt | 5 +
builtin/push.c | 3 +++
cache.h | 1 +
config.c | 4
environment.c
17 matches
Mail list logo
