force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

[Ken Dreyer]

Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in
ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally
deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch. (Not that
any of us were going to do that, of course! :)

- Ken

Re: force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 665 bytes --]



On 10/12/2014 23:20, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in
> ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally
> deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch. (Not that
> any of us were going to do that, of course! :)

Thanks ! I did that last year and that makes me appreciate the precaution ;-)

> 
> - Ken
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

[Ken Dreyer]

On 12/10/2014 03:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> On 10/12/2014 23:20, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in
>> ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally
>> deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch. (Not that
>> any of us were going to do that, of course! :)
> 
> Thanks ! I did that last year and that makes me appreciate the precaution ;-)

Whoops, so I duplicated your work apparently!

I was thinking that we should do this for the release branches as well?
So "argonaut", "bobtail", "cuttlefish" "dumpling", "emperor", "firefly",
"giant"... any other branches?

And should we open a new support request each time we create a new
release branch in the future?

- Ken

Re: force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]



On 10/12/2014 23:33, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On 12/10/2014 03:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> On 10/12/2014 23:20, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>>> Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in
>>> ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally
>>> deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch. (Not that
>>> any of us were going to do that, of course! :)
>>
>> Thanks ! I did that last year and that makes me appreciate the precaution ;-)
> 
> Whoops, so I duplicated your work apparently!

No, I meant I force pushed master inadvertendly last year ;-)
> 
> I was thinking that we should do this for the release branches as well?
> So "argonaut", "bobtail", "cuttlefish" "dumpling", "emperor", "firefly",
> "giant"... any other branches?

That would be a good idea.

> And should we open a new support request each time we create a new
> release branch in the future?

Or make it so nobody except a gate has write access, but that's going to take some time.

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

[Sage Weil]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On 12/10/2014 03:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> > On 10/12/2014 23:20, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> >> Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in
> >> ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally
> >> deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch. (Not that
> >> any of us were going to do that, of course! :)
> > 
> > Thanks ! I did that last year and that makes me appreciate the precaution ;-)
> 
> Whoops, so I duplicated your work apparently!
> 
> I was thinking that we should do this for the release branches as well?
> So "argonaut", "bobtail", "cuttlefish" "dumpling", "emperor", "firefly",
> "giant"... any other branches?
> 
> And should we open a new support request each time we create a new
> release branch in the future?

The backport branches are occasionally reset; I'd rather not remove that 
flexibility.  They're generally not something people should be developing 
against so I don't think it's an issue.

sage