Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] push: update remote tags only with force

From: Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2012, 01:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CAEUsAPbmimoEVoJjvXkOFacs-X6hu5b0NO1sHZ9eSSRM07yPFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121109183834.GB22164@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 35 quoted lines

> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:08:23PM -0600, Chris Rorvick wrote:
>
>> Patch series to prevent push from updating remote tags w/o forcing them.
>> Split out original patch to ease review.
>>
>> Chris Rorvick (5):
>>   push: return reject reasons via a mask
>>   push: add advice for rejected tag reference
>>   push: flag updates
>>   push: flag updates that require force
>>   push: update remote tags only with force
>>
>>  Documentation/git-push.txt |   10 +++++-----
>>  builtin/push.c             |   24 +++++++++++++++---------
>>  builtin/send-pack.c        |    6 ++++++
>>  cache.h                    |    7 ++++++-
>>  remote.c                   |   39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>  t/t5516-fetch-push.sh      |   30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  transport-helper.c         |    6 ++++++
>>  transport.c                |   25 +++++++++++++++----------
>>  transport.h                |   10 ++++++----
>>  9 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> I have not looked carefully at this topic yet, but I did try merging it
> to "pu" and found that it had some textual conflicts with the
> nd/builtin-to-libgit topic, which moves some builtin/send-pack.c code to
> send-pack.c. Since I am graduating that topic to master, I went ahead
> and just rebased your topic on top.
>
> If you do a re-roll, please use an updated master, and feel free to
> grab (and double-check!) the rebase I am about to send out in 'pu'. I
> also included the minor signed/unsigned pointer warning fixup in the
> rebase, too.
>
> -Peff

Thanks, I've rebased and checked against the changes in pu. Looks good to me. I have a couple of other minor fixes (see below for details.) I'll include these in an update if there is sufficient interest in this.

Chris

-- 8< --

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index fde2a79..b025a38 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -1351,9 +1351,8 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref
*remote_refs, int send

                if (ref->update) {
                        ref->nonfastforward =
-                               ref->update &&
-                               (!has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1)
-                                 || !ref_newer(ref->new_sha1, ref->old_sha1));
+                               !has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1)
+                                 || !ref_newer(ref->new_sha1, ref->old_sha1);

                        if (!ref->forwardable) {
                                ref->requires_force = 1;
diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
index c183971..a380ad7 100644
--- a/transport.c
+++ b/transport.c
@@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ void transport_print_push_status(const char *dest,
struct ref *r
                        else
                                *reject_mask |= REJECT_NON_FF_OTHER;
                } else if (ref->status == REF_STATUS_REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS) {
-                               *reject_mask |= REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS;
+                       *reject_mask |= REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS;
                }
        }
 }