Re: [PATCH 5/7] push: require force for refs under refs/tags/
- From
Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
- Date
- Nov 27, 2012, 04:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAEUsAPZTycJS_USj-tYNN2Bpwn8XvYDTd4c7wFMFDYfNeSCUtw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vfw3wry4d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 30 quoted lines
> 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.