Re: [PATCH] commit: make --only --allow-empty work without paths

From: Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>
Date: Dec 6, 2016, 09:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20161206093930.GE16188@inner.h.apk.li>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh96i3ygs.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:36:19 +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:59:49AM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:

...

Show 7 quoted lines

> >> Tool: git commit --allow-empty -m 'FIX: A-123'
> >
> > OK. I think "tool" is slightly funny here, but I get that is part of the
> > real world works. Thanks for illustrating.
> 
> I am not sure if I understand.  Why isn't the FIX: thing added to
> the commit being pulled by amending it?

Because we don't allow push -f on our blessed repo (bitbucket). (Oops, answer to wrong question. But the integrators don't want to meddle with dev's commits, either.)

This has multiple reasons:

- The percentage of people who can and would be willing
  to do rebase -i is small. (Not that they are likely to
  increase under this policy.)

- Our build tool record builds by commit id, and when
  you rebase (even if only for commit message edits)
  you lose your (simple) build history.

> Would the convention be for
> the responder of a pull-request to fetch and drop the tip commit?

No, they need to keep it as there is automation hinging on the FIX line.

I would much prefer people to do rebases/amends instead of this crutch, but that's not for now.

Hmm, it just occurred to me that we might allow force pushes for specific users to keep the foot-shooting ratio low.

- Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800