Re: [PATCH 2/2] push: --follow-tag

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 5, 2013, 18:22 UTC
Message-ID: <20130305182255.GB10928@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <5135DBE5.6080909@alum.mit.edu>

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:49:57PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> > One obvious alternative is only to push annotated tags with this
> > feature. That has the downside of not matching fetch's behavior, as well
> > as withholding the feature from people whose workflow uses only
> > unannotated tags.
> > 
> > Another alternative would be to change the inclusion rule from
> > "reachable" to "points at the tip of something being sent". But then we
> > lose the feature that it would backfill any old tags the remote happens
> > to be missing.
> 
> I have no opinion on this matter, but ISTM that another obvious
> alternative would be to push tags that point at *any* commits that are
> being sent (not just at the tip), but not those that point to older
> commits already known to the server.  This would reduce the potential
> for accidental pushes of "distant" tags.

Yeah, I think that is another sensible variant. It does not really "backfill" in the way that Junio's patch does (e.g., if you forgot to push out v1.6 to a remote 2 weeks ago and now you are pushing out v1.7, Junio's patch will magically fill it in). But I do not see a huge value in backfilling. It is anyone's guess whether you simply forgot to push out v1.6 or whether you intended to hold it back. And I'd rather err on the side of not-pushing because of the difficulty of retraction.

-Peff