From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:40:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref
Message-ID: <7vli5bllsd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51E03B18.5040502@kdbg.org>

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:

> 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.