On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Chris Rorvick <ch...@rorvick.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> It is fine when pushing into "refs/tags/" hierarchy. It is *NOT* >>> OK if the type check does not satisfy this function. In that case, >>> we do not actually see the existence of the destination as a >>> problem, but it is reported as such. We are blocking because we do >>> not like the type of the new object or the type of the old object. >>> If the destination points at a commit, the push can succeed if the >>> user changes what object to push, so saying "you cannot push because >>> the destination already exists" is just wrong in such a case. >> >> So the solution is to revert back to recommending a merge? > > Of course not, because at that point you may not even have what you > were attempting to overwrite. Nobody says it is even something you > could merge.
I was referring to your concern about rejecting based on type. A push causing a reference to move (for example) from a commit to a blob is rejected as "already exists" with this patch. You emphatically state this is not OK and your solution is to revert back to behavior that advises a merge. Clearly the bug regarding an 'old' unknown to the client should be fixed. This is a obvious test case I should have covered and it's unfortunate it made it into master. But I don't understand why is_forwardable() was misguided (maybe poorly named) nor why ref_newer() is a better place to solve the issues it was addressing. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
