Re: [PATCH 4/5] Add --remote option to send-pack

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: May 3, 2007, 05:45 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705030137520.28708@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7virba31wd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 28 quoted lines

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> We are indeed pretending.  Consider:
> >> 
> >>  (1) You push, and push succeeds.
> >> 
> >>  (2) Somebody fetches your result, works on it and pushes back;
> >>      this might happen in post-receive hook.
> >> 
> >>  (3) You fetch.  You should see somebody else's commit at the
> >>      tip, not what you pushed in (1).
> >> 
> >> By not fetching but instead of storing what you pushed, you are
> >> pretending that you re-fetched so fast that you gave no chance
> >> to anybody to perform (2) quickly enough.
> >
> > But you did effectively re-fetch instantaneously by doing an operation 
> > that atomicly updates the ref and reports success.
> 
> I do not think there is much point arguing over this; I am not
> fundamentally opposed to keeping a copy of what we just pushed
> to the other side.
> 
> But I think it needs to be documented that hooks on the remote
> side could do funny things, and probably we should strongly
> discourage people from doing such.

I don't see what's any *more* odd about this situation with my change than otherwise (and I'm afraid I'm missing something, which is why I'm still discussing it).

> You do need to take care of the case where we are _not_ tracking
> the remote side, though (i.e. lack of colon in the fetch
> refspecs).

Indeed. Is there documentation on all the possibilities for refspecs somewhere all together? I could only find it for particular programs, and didn't see a no-colon option permitted anywhere.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*