Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 12, 2013, 17:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vli5bllsd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <51E03B18.5040502@kdbg.org>
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Am 12.07.2013 00:14, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes: >> >>> Again: Why not just define +refspec as the way to achieve this check? >> >> What justification do we have to break existing people's >> configuration that says something like: >> >> [remote "ko"] >> url = kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git >> push = master >> push = next >> push = +pu >> push = maint >> >> by adding a _new_ requirement they may not be able to satisify? >> Notice that the above is a typical "push only" publishing point, >> where you do not need any remote tracking branches. > > Why would it break? When you do not specify --lockref, there is no > change whatsoever.
I thought your suggestion "Why not just define +pu as the way to achieve _THIS_ check?" was to make +pu to mean
git push ko --lockref pu
which would mean "check refs/remotes/ko/pu and make sure the remote side still is at that commit".
If that is not what you meant, please clarify what _THIS_ is.