Re: git fetch overwriting local tags

From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Date: Nov 24, 2011, 07:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20111124070728.GR19986@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20111123221658.GA22313@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi Jeff,

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 05:16:58PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:08:21AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > John and I wondered about git fetch overwriting local tags. I was sure
> > enough to claim that git fetch won't overwrite local tags with remote
> > tags having the same name. But after John pointed me to
> > 
> > 	http://www.pythian.com/news/9067/on-the-perils-of-importing-remote-tags-in-git/
> > 
> > I tested that (using Debian's 1.7.7.3) and really, git does overwrite
> > local tags.
> > 
> > Here is my test script:
> > [...]
> > 	git fetch --tags ../a
> > [...]
> > Is this intended?
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> By default, "git fetch" will "auto-follow" tags; if you fetch a commit
> which is pointed to by a tag, then git will fetch that tag, too. So
> generally, you shouldn't need to specify "--tags" at all, because you
> will already be getting the relevant tags.

Hmm, if I do:

        mkdir a
        cd a
        echo some content > some_file
        git init
        git add some_file
        git commit -m 'some commit log'
        git tag some_tag

        cd ..

        mkdir b
        cd b
        echo some different content > another_file
        git init
        git add another_file
        git commit -m 'another commit log'

	git fetch ../a

I don't get the tag. That's why I added --tags. I guess that's because some_tag is a lightweight tag. Hmm, but even if I change the command to create the tag to

	git tag -a -m 'tag desc' some_tag

I don't get it without --tags?!

Show 23 quoted lines

> The "--tags" option, however, is a short-hand for saying "fetch all of
> the tags", and is equivalent to providing the refspec:
> 
>   git fetch ../a refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*
> 
> Which of course will update your local tags with similarly-named ones
> from the remote.  So in that sense, there is no bug, and it is working
> as intended; the problem is that the author's intent was not the same as
> your intent. :)
> 
> I'm not sure why you're using "--tags" in the first place. That might
> help us figure out if there's another way to do what you want that is
> safer.
> 
> That being said, it would be nice if "--tags" wasn't so surprising.
> Three things that I think could help are:
> 
>   1. We usually require a "+" on the refspec (or "--force") to update
>      non-fast-forward branches. But there is no such safety on tags
>      (which generally shouldn't be updated at all). Should we at least
>      be enforcing the same fast-forward rules on tag fetches (or even
>      something more strict, like forbidding tag update at all unless
>      forced)?

That sounds fine for me.

>   2. We don't keep a reflog on tags. Generally there's no point. But
>      it wouldn't be very expensive (since they don't usually change),
>      and could provide a safety mechanism here.

I prefer 1, but that would be better than the current situation at
least.

>   3. Keeping tags from remotes in separate namespaces, but collating
>      them at lookup time. This has been discussed, and I think is
>      generally a fine idea, but nobody has moved forward with code.

That's something that John said in our discussion, too. That's the suggestion I like the most.

Best regards and thanks for your time, Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |