Re: Easy Non-Fast-Forward Pushes

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Feb 27, 2015, 17:40 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZ3_ohE6ebY5MvOk6+QfChppR_OtcmVaw5LBoutTWm3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20150227T170215-199@post.gmane.org>

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Lasse Kliemann <lasse@lassekliemann.de> wrote:

Show 29 quoted lines

> As far as I understand, a push will always modify (or add) a ref in the
> remote repository. When pushing to branch B, then the ref pointing to the
> last commit in this branch will be moved, provided that this can be done in
> a fast-forward way. Otherwise the push will fail.
>
> The following options exist:
>
> (1) force the push
> (2) fetch, merge, then push
> (3) push to a different branch
>
> I don't want (1), for obvious reasons.
>
> Option (2) implies that a particular person has to do the merge, namely the
> person for whom the push is failing, or in other words: the person
> unfortunate enough not being the first to push. (This reminds me of
> Subversion: whoever tries to commit after someone else has committed will
> have the burden of an update and possible merge.)
>
> Option (3) allows others to recognize the situation, and anyone with
> repository access can do a merge. This is a good thing. However, I am
> confused as to what branch name should be used for this. In Mercurial, we
> would say that a new "head" is created, and anyone can recognize this by
> using "hg heads" and do a merge if he feels competent enough. (A "head" in
> Mercurial is a revision without children.) Can something similar be done in
> Git? I'd like to provide my co-workers with a command which they can always
> use to push their changes to a central repository in order that I can see
> what has happened and do merges accordingly. In Mercurial, such a command
> would simply be "hg commit && hg push -f".

For a high level workflow with pure git, everything must be a branch or a tag IMHO, (I cannot really think of other ways).

So maybe you create a bash alias for alias gitup='git push origin HEAD:${USER}/$(date -Iseconds)' which would push your current tip of the repository to the remote with quite a unique name.

Then you could also do a "git commit -a && gitup" to push your changes
to the server
As the integrator you could then integrate branches with
    "git fetch origin && git merge origin/sbeller/2015-02-27T09:34:47-0800"

So it is doable. Though I am not convinced of the workflow. Maybe you want to look at Gerrit or GitLab (both are open source web userinterfaces, where you can push changes to and approve them)

Show 10 quoted lines

>Then I can use "hg heads" to see
> if any new heads have grown, and if so, do merges. Upon their next pull,
> these merges would manifest themselves in the repositories of my co-workers,
> and everything will be fine for them. So, im looking for the equivalent of
> that workflow in Git. Thanks a lot!
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html