Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]> writes:
> +
> -Unlike when pushing with linkgit:git-push[1], any updates to
> -`refs/tags/*` will be accepted without `+` in the refspec (or
> -`--force`). The receiving promiscuously considers all tag updates from
> -a remote to be forced fetches.
> +Until Git version 2.20, and unlike when pushing with
> +linkgit:git-push[1], any updates to `refs/tags/*` would be accepted
> +without `+` in the refspec (or `--force`). The receiving promiscuously
> +considered all tag updates from a remote to be forced fetches. Since
> +Git version 2.20 updates to `refs/tags/*` work the same way as when
> +pushing. I.e. any updates will be rejected without `+` in the refspec
> +(or `--force`).
Have a comma after 2.20; otherwise it was unreadable, at least to
me, who took three attempts before realizing that the "updates" is
not a verb whose subject is "Git version 2.20". Or
Since Git version 2.20, fetching to update `refs/tags/*`
work the same way as pushing into it
perhaps.
> diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
> index b0706b3803..ed4ed9d8c4 100644
> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
> @@ -667,12 +667,18 @@ static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref,
>
> if (!is_null_oid(&ref->old_oid) &&
> starts_with(ref->name, "refs/tags/")) {
> - int r;
> - r = s_update_ref("updating tag", ref, 0);
> - format_display(display, r ? '!' : 't', _("[tag update]"),
> - r ? _("unable to update local ref") : NULL,
> - remote, pretty_ref, summary_width);
> - return r;
> + if (force || ref->force) {
> + int r;
> + r = s_update_ref("updating tag", ref, 0);
> + format_display(display, r ? '!' : 't', _("[tag
> update]"),
> + r ? _("unable to update local ref") :
> NULL,
> + remote, pretty_ref, summary_width);
> + return r;
> + } else {
> + format_display(display, '!', _("[rejected]"), _("would
> clobber existing tag"),
> + remote, pretty_ref, summary_width);
> + return 1;
> + }
> }
A straight-forward change to turn an unconditional update to either
an unconditonal rejection (when force is not given) or an
unconditional acceptance (when forced), which makes sense and has
near-zero chance of being wrong ;-)
It is a huge change in behaviour, but in a very good way. I'd
imagine that users will welcome it very much.
