From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Romuald Brunet <romuald@chivil.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: allow atomic flag via configuration
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:51:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170328005126.GP31294@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490603272.9788.7.camel@locke.gandi.net>
Hi,
Romuald Brunet wrote:
> On ven., 2017-03-24 at 12:29 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>> My one question would be whether people would want this to actually be
>>> specific to a particular remote, and not just on for a given repository
>>> (your "site-specific" in the description made me think of that). In that
>>> case it would be better as part of the remote.* config.
>>
>> Yeah, I had the same reaction.
>>
>> Conceptually, this sits next to remote.*.push that defines which set
>> of refs are sent by default, and remote.<name>.pushAtomic does make
>> sense. If (and only if) it turns out to be cumbersome for somebody
>> to set the configuration for each and every remote, it is OK to also
>> add push.atomic to serve as a fallback for remote.*.pushAtomic, I
>> would think, but adding only push.atomic feels somewhat backwards.
>
> Thanks for your feedback
>
> I'm mostly using single remotes that's why I didn't even think of making
> it configurable per remote. But you're right that makes more sense.
>
> I'll try to make that modification to the patch.
>
> As for my use case: I'd like to use default atomic pushes when pushing a
> new tag among our stable branch, but inevitably forgetting to rebase
> beforehand. Therefore pushing a "dangling" commit/tag
Making it per-remote would also address my concern about scripts.
Existing scripts may be using
git push $url $refs
and relying on the push to partially succeed even when some refs
cannot be fast-forwarded. (For example, I had such a script that did
git push my-mirror refs/remotes/origin/*:refs/heads/*
git push my-mirror +origin/pu:pu
because the first command would fail to update pu, and then the second
command would clean up after it.) A configuration that globally
changes the effect of "git push" to mean "git push --atomic" would
break such scripts. A per-remote configuration is tightly enough
scoped to not be likely to cause unrelated breakage for users that run
scripts written by others.
Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-28 0:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-24 17:17 [PATCH] push: allow atomic flag via configuration Romuald Brunet
2017-03-24 18:45 ` Jeff King
2017-03-24 18:53 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-03-24 19:01 ` Jeff King
2017-03-24 19:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-27 8:27 ` Romuald Brunet
2017-03-28 0:51 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2017-03-27 9:30 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-27 9:33 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-27 16:59 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170328005126.GP31294@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=romuald@chivil.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox