From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [bug in next ?] git-fetch/git-push issue Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:22:17 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhck0mg5y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071105175654.GD6205@artemis.corp> <20071105210711.GA9176@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071105225540.GA10988@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Barkalow , Pierre Habouzit , Nicolas Pitre , Git ML To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 06 00:22:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IpBHH-0005Oo-7p for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:22:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754832AbXKEXW2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:22:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754741AbXKEXW2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:22:28 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:38568 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754803AbXKEXW2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:22:28 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B800E2EF; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177DB92880; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:22:42 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071105225540.GA10988@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:55:41 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > Which I guess is what you were trying to accomplish by removing the > peer_ref, though I think that doesn't distinguish between "didn't match > a remote ref" and "had an error." Perhaps we just need an error flag in > the ref struct? I agree that makes the most sense. As Steffen has been advocating on another thread, depending on your workflow, you do not care about some classes of push errors per pushed refs. The update of the remote and local tracking refs should be done in sync (i.e. if the remote wasn't updated, never update the corresponding local), but it can depend on the nature of the failure if a failure to update a remote ref should result in the non-zero exit status from git-push as a whole. And to implement that, per-ref error flag would be a good way to go, methinks.