Web lists-archives.com

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




Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If you're already copying sha1s around you could use those as the
> > --force-with-lease=branch:<commit>, no?
> >
> > That's better guarantee than just using --force-with-lease alone.
> 
> Absolutely. That was the _only_ way the feature was originally designed
> to be used sensibly. We really shouldn't have added that "lazy" option [...]
> 
> Perhaps we should deprecate that "lazy" feature and remove it over
> time, making sure that everybody feeds the explicit commit object name
> that was recorded by the user somewhere (e.g. the approach to tag the
> commit to record the expected remote tip, which Peff illustrated).

I agree that this is better than giving the user a false sense of
security.

The problem is that manually recording the lease is painful. Like I
illustrated, the assumption that you can "simply" do this:

  (... my working copy is in some ramdom state)

  (... now I decide I want to rewrite history)

  $ git tag lease origin/master
  $ git rebase -i
  $ git push --force-with-lease=master:lease

doesn't hold, because by the time you decide to rewrite the history it's
already too late.

To solve this, I'd have to record the lease every time I pull or push;
this is a lot of work, and easy to forget and error-prone. Hence my
suggestion to have git do this automatically. I'd be interested in your
thoughts about that proposal, Junio; you didn't say anything about that
at all yet.


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