Web lists-archives.com

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




On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Stefan Haller <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> 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 force-with-lease?
>
> The problem with this is that it doesn't help to use "git create-lease"
> right before you start your rewind-y operation, because by that time you
> may already have fetched. You'd have to use "git create-lease" right
> after you pull or push. But at the time I pull I don't know yet whether
> I will later want to rewrite the branch, so to be sure I have to do this
> every time I pull or push, and then I'd prefer git to do it for me.
>

No, you don't set the sha1 as the tip of "origin/master" you set it as
the tip of "master" after you've performed all the integration and are
about to rewind history somehow.

>> However, I think using origin/master works fine as long as you don't auto-fetch.
>>
>> If you're doing it right, you can handle origin/master updates by
>> checking that your rewind-y stuff is correct for the new origin/master
>> RIGHT before you push.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "checking that your rewind-y
> stuff is correct for the new origin/master"; does that mean manually
> inspecting origin/master to convince youself that you are not
> overwriting something new? If so, I don't think this is acceptable. It
> is probably ok to work this way if the other party only pushed commits
> on top; it's reasonable to expect that you will recognize new commits as
> ones that you haven't seen before. But what if the other party has
> rewritten the branch and squashed improvements into commits in the
> middle of it? The head commit will then look the same as before, and the
> only way to tell whether you are overwriting something new is by
> comparing the old and new hashes. So then we're back at having to
> remember what the old hash was.
>

You can do a diff rather than a check of the log.

Thanks,
Jake

>
> --
> Stefan Haller
> Berlin, Germany
> http://www.haller-berlin.de/