git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH 5/7] push: require force for refs under refs/tags/

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Nov 27, 2012, 17:12 UTC
Message-ID
<7v7gp7nf5e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To
<CAEUsAPZTycJS_USj-tYNN2Bpwn8XvYDTd4c7wFMFDYfNeSCUtw@mail.gmail.com>
Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com> writes:
Show 34 quoted lines
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
>>> index 4a6f822..012b52f 100644
>>> --- a/remote.c
>>> +++ b/remote.c
>>> @@ -1315,14 +1315,18 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
>>>                *
>>>                * (1) if the old thing does not exist, it is OK.
>>>                *
>>> -              * (2) if you do not have the old thing, you are not allowed
>>> +              * (2) if the destination is under refs/tags/ you are
>>> +              *     not allowed to overwrite it; tags are expected
>>> +              *     to be static once created
>>> +              *
>>> +              * (3) if you do not have the old thing, you are not allowed
>>>                *     to overwrite it; you would not know what you are losing
>>>                *     otherwise.
>>>                *
>>> -              * (3) if both new and old are commit-ish, and new is a
>>> +              * (4) if both new and old are commit-ish, and new is a
>>>                *     descendant of old, it is OK.
>>>                *
>>> -              * (4) regardless of all of the above, removing :B is
>>> +              * (5) regardless of all of the above, removing :B is
>>>                *     always allowed.
>>>                */
>>
>> We may want to reword (0) to make it clear that --force
>> (and +A:B) can be used to defeat all the other rules.
>
> On that note, having (5) be "regardless of all of the above ..." seems
> a little awkward.  That would seem to fit better towards the top.

Sure. (0) you can always force; (1) you can always delete; and then other requirements. That may indeed read better.

Thanks.
Previous: Chris RorvickNext: Chris Rorvick
Message 11 of 18 in “push: update remote tags only with force”
  1. 0/7 push: update remote tags only with forceChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  2. 1/7 push: return reject reasons via a maskChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  3. Junio C HamanoNov 26, 2012
  4. Chris RorvickNov 27, 2012
  5. 2/7 push: add advice for rejected tag referenceChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  6. 3/7 push: flag updatesChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  7. 4/7 push: flag updates that require forceChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  8. 5/7 push: require force for refs under refs/tags/Chris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  9. Junio C HamanoNov 26, 2012
  10. Chris RorvickNov 27, 2012
  11. Junio C HamanoNov 27, 2012
  12. push: cleanup push rules commentChris Rorvick, Nov 28, 2012
  13. Junio C HamanoNov 28, 2012
  14. 6/7 push: require force for annotated tagsChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  15. 7/7 push: clarify rejection of update to non-commit-ishChris Rorvick, Nov 23, 2012
  16. Junio C HamanoNov 26, 2012
  17. Chris RorvickNov 27, 2012
  18. Junio C HamanoNov 27, 2012

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.