Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Junio C Hamano wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > > If you're already copying sha1s around you could use those as the > > --force-with-lease=branch:, no? > > > > That's better guarantee than just using

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 02:37:27PM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote: > > > Are you talking about the case where the user doesn't say git pull, but > > instead says "git fetch && git merge --ff @{u}"? Just so that I > > understand the concern. > > Yes, that (which is

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Stefan Haller wrote: > Then, every command that either integrates the remote tracking branch > into the local branch, or updates the remote tracking branch to the > local branch, will update the value of the "lease" entry. The most > obvious ones are "git pull" and "git

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 02:37:27PM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote: > > I agree that probably makes the multiple-operation stuff go away, which > > is nice. It does raise the question of when the integration point > > happens, and how we handle alternate paths through which commits may > > land in a

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Ævar Arnfjör? Bjarmason wrote: > Does this proposal require that all the things that can update a ref > be hooked to maintain these lease values? It is true that the proposal relies on people using git push and git pull, not some lower level approximation such as git fetch +

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote: > > > I think it's wrong to think about these leases as something that you > > take before you start a rewindy operation. That's the wrong time to take > > the lease; by that time, the remote

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jacob Keller wrote: > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Haller wrote: > > > Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that in my proposal, but I propose to > > always store the commit hash of the remote tracking branch as a new > > lease after push and

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: > > If you're already copying sha1s around you could use those as the > --force-with-lease=branch:, no? > > That's better guarantee than just using --force-with-lease alone. Absolutely. That was the _only_ way the

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Haller wrote: >>> Jacob Keller wrote: >>>

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > > It might be possible to generate these lease tags prior to operations > > > which modify history and then maybe having a way to list them so you > > > can select which one you meant when you

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Haller wrote: >> Jacob Keller wrote: >> >>> Agreed. You "take" a lease whenever you push to the remote or when you >>> pull from the

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Haller wrote: > Jacob Keller wrote: > >> Agreed. You "take" a lease whenever you push to the remote or when you >> pull from the remote and when you pull into the branch. It should >> store something that tracks

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jacob Keller wrote: > Agreed. You "take" a lease whenever you push to the remote or when you > pull from the remote and when you pull into the branch. It should > store something that tracks both the branch and remote branch together > so that you can generalize it to

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jeff King wrote: > > It might be possible to generate these lease tags prior to operations > > which modify history and then maybe having a way to list them so you > > can select which one you meant when you try to use force-with-lease.. > > So yeah, I think that is the more

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Stefan Haller wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > >> > It might be possible to generate these lease tags prior to operations >> > which modify history and then maybe having a way to list them so you >> > can select which one you meant

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Stefan Haller wrote: > Jacob Keller wrote: > >> What if we added a separate command something like: >> >> git create-lease >> >> which you're expected to run at the start of a rewind-y operation and >> it creates a

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jacob Keller wrote: > What if we added a separate command something like: > > git create-lease > > which you're expected to run at the start of a rewind-y operation and > it creates a tag (or some other ref like a tag but in a different > namespace) which is used by

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 02:54:29PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> > So the best way to use it is something like: >> > >> > git fetch ;# update 'master' from remote >> > git tag base master;# mark our base

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 02:54:29PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > > So the best way to use it is something like: > > > > git fetch ;# update 'master' from remote > > git tag base master;# mark our base point > > git rebase -i master ;# rewrite some commits > > git push

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 05:03:06PM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > I think Matt's point is just that the default, to use origin/branch, is > > unsafe. It's convenient when you don't have extra fetches, but that > > convenience may not be worth the potential

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:35:04AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> Is it correct that you'd essentially want something that works like: >> >> git push --force-with-lease=master:master origin master:master > > I don't

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Ævar Arnfjör? Bjarmason wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Stefan Haller wrote: > > > Here's a rough proposal for how I would imagine this to work. > > > > For every local branch that has a remote tracking branch, git maintains > > a new config

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Stefan Haller wrote: > Matt McCutchen wrote: > >> When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice >> safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the >> remote-tracking ref gives

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Jeff King wrote: > I think Matt's point is just that the default, to use origin/branch, is > unsafe. It's convenient when you don't have extra fetches, but that > convenience may not be worth the potential surprise. I don't think "surprise" is the right word here. The point of

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Matt McCutchen wrote: > When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice > safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the > remote-tracking ref gives the old state the user wants to overwrite. > Tools that do an implicit fetch,

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

W dniu 08.04.2017 o 11:29, Jeff King pisze: [...] > Perhaps it would be enough to reset the markers whenever the ref is > pushed. I haven't thought it through well enough to know whether that > just hits more corner cases. I wonder if using a separate remote for pushing (with separate remote-

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 01:25:43AM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > > When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice > > safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the > >

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:35:04AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Is it correct that you'd essentially want something that works like: > > git push --force-with-lease=master:master origin master:master I don't think that would do anything useful. It would reject any push where the

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice > safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the > remote-tracking ref gives the old state the user wants to overwrite. > Tools

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice > safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the > remote-tracking ref gives the old state the user wants to overwrite. > Tools

Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

Matt McCutchen wrote: > When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice > safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the > remote-tracking ref gives the old state the user wants to overwrite. > Tools that do an implicit fetch,