Re: [PATCH] git-send-pack: don't consider branch lagging behind as errors.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 01:37:48PM +0000, Jeff King wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:51:55PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > It's really painful to have git push error out when it's just that one of
> > your tracking branches isn't up to date with respect to a remote branch.
> >
> > Let just add a new status: "lagging", always print it to screen when we're
> > lagging, but don't exit with a non 0 value, as it really alarms users.
>
> This has been discussed before, and the suggested term was "stale".
>
> Check out:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/73038/focus=73186
>
> which is uncannily identical (the difference is the name, and that I
> don't show the lagged branches unless -v is given).
>
> Among the issues that were not sorted out last time:
>
> - should stale branches be shown without -v?
I believe so, it's valuable information. It's as valuable as what you
get after a git fetch nowadays (like branches have diverged n and m
commits each or similar) But oh well… I don't care that much.
> - calling ref_newer here is inefficient, since we have already called
> it in the other direction. We should probably do the traversal once
> in such a way as to find out which ref is newer (or if it is
> indeterminate).
Well, true, though I don't expect people to have tons of local
branches that match a refspec _and_ lag behind. I suspect this is a very
minor performance loss.
Show 7 quoted lines
> - there is a possible danger with "git push -f", in that you force
> both rejected branches as well as stale branches. Junio and I
> discussed the possibility of disallowing "-f" unless the user
> explicitly requested _what_ to push; i.e., --all, --matching,
> --mirror, or a refspec. See:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/74425/focus=74481
Well afaict this is a separate issue, as we're (with such a patch)
only changing what gets printed on the console, not the internal
behavior. So solving this second issue should not really be a
precondition to the inclusion of such a patch.
> I was considering resurrecting my patch after working up that safety
> valve.
Please please please do :)
The exit 1 of git-push is really annoying me these days.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>