Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Once Francesco's patch is also applied (or some version thereof) you can
> then set push.AlwaysForceWithElease to make --force mean
> --force-with-lease, which is disabled by default.
>
> I think this is really crappy UX design. Now in some future version of
> Gi
On Fri, Jul 07 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
[Re-flowing & re-quoting some of this for clarity]
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>> Which is why I think we should take Francesco's patch (with fixes from
>> feedback), instead of Junio's.
>
> The patch in this discussion is not meant as a repl
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>>> index 0a639664fd..1fa01210a2 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>>> @@ -212,8 +212,9 @@ must n
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Which is why I think we should take Francesco's patch (with fixes from
> feedback), instead of Junio's.
The patch in this discussion is not meant as a replacement for the
one from Francesco. It was meant as a companion patch.
As I view the form of the option
On Fri, Jul 07 2017, Stefan Haller jotted:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> It turns out that some people use third-party tools that fetch from
>> remote and update the remote-tracking branches behind users' back,
>> defeating the safety relying on the stability of the remote-tracking
>> branches.
>
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:24:15AM +0200, Stefan Haller wrote:
> > Let's disable the form that relies on the stability of remote-tracking
> > branches by default, and allow users who _know_ their remote-tracking
> > branches are stable to enable it with a configuration variable.
>
> I'm wondering
On Thu, Jul 06 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
> "git push --force-with-lease=:" makes sure that
> there is no unexpected changes to the branch at the remote while you
> prepare a rewrite based on the old state of the branch. This
> feature came with an experimental option that allows : part
> to
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> It turns out that some people use third-party tools that fetch from
> remote and update the remote-tracking branches behind users' back,
> defeating the safety relying on the stability of the remote-tracking
> branches.
Third-party tools are not the only problem. They may
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ test_expect_success 'push to update (allowed)' '
>>> (
>>> cd dst &&
>>> test_commit D &&
>>> + git config push.allowLazyForceWithLease false &&
>>
>> Here I thought
>>
Stefan Beller writes:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>> index 0a639664fd..1fa01210a2 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>> @@ -212,8 +212,9 @@ must not already exist.
>> +
>> Note that all forms other than `--f
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "git push --force-with-lease=:" makes sure that
> there is no unexpected changes to the branch at the remote while you
> prepare a rewrite based on the old state of the branch. This
> feature came with an experimental option that allows : p
"git push --force-with-lease=:" makes sure that
there is no unexpected changes to the branch at the remote while you
prepare a rewrite based on the old state of the branch. This
feature came with an experimental option that allows : part
to be omitted by using the tip of remote-tracking branch tha
12 matches
Mail list logo
