Re: [PATCH v3 0/6]

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 23, 2013, 18:26 UTC
Message-ID: <7v8v0x874x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20130723T113216-324@post.gmane.org>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>
>> 
>> This is mostly unchanged since the previous round, except that
>> 
>>  * The option is spelled "--force-with-lease=<ref>:<expect>".
>>    Nobody liked "cas" as it was too technical, many disliked
>>    "lockref" because "lock" sounded as if push by others were
>>    excluded by it while in fact this is to fail us.
>
> Perhaps "--force-gently" ? :-)

Hmph. But we usually use "gently" to mean "do not give the end user an error message--the caller handles the error itself".

While the option lets you break the usual "must fast-forward" rule, it is more precise in that the remote ref must be pointing at not just any ancestor of what you are pushing, but has to be at the exact commit you specify.

E.g. if you have built one commit on top of the shared branch, and try to push it with "push --cas=pu:HEAD^ HEAD:pu" (because you know one commit before the tip is where you started from), your push will be rejected if somebody else did an equivalent of "reset HEAD~3" on the receiving end (perhaps because the top commits recorded some material inappropriate for the project). Your new commit is still a decendant of that rewound tip, and usual "must fast-forward" rule would accept the push, but with "push --cas=pu:HEAD^ HEAD:pu", you will notice that somebody wanted to rewind the tip and pushing your work that contains these dropped commit contradicts with that wish.

So I dunno.