From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFACF1F462 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 21:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388147AbfG2VoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:44:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:59533 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726971AbfG2VoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:44:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F919855CD; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:44:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=GBmFy3S2Mc2B545WvvpobRdmo+c=; b=V2Ag8a WgSbVFh/3VKO5xpc4EmKABBPWdRPxHE432FAd7fVEykkvVzhnbHU8VZHMhXMsI7f ypDgq7WZJe9Wlevjm0DJscRg42HIE3vPE/lepV/qzJZrEAgd9a+lDOMJmIKLoXu8 Y8iF3XK8PvnonBiwR1jVdZ18VlujjrGfIyH+4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=R6vC/+wDOGFrX8wegKQTuy7WmqV/i+yL FaldRpyJnbkhJI6htzjyL+b1UOJf42UDLDx/9JF4iJxKnPjO2CBXH42tjNi7TE0B x1PdchwPfPSGKbxv2wfl1jdkBXZmbVxXg5nV29C7FtmJFbsOfj0yezDFjfL95VsM 6KxkmPe5By4= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D5D855CC; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:44:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7246855CB; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:44:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Christopher Head , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Push force-with-lease with multi-URL remote References: <20190727095440.1aac3b3c@amdahl.home.chead.ca> <20190729102009.GC2755@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190729192040.GD14943@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:44:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190729192040.GD14943@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:20:40 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FB1F4360-B249-11E9-B92E-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Yeah, the auto-update of the tracking refs came later (so I think you > could argue the bad interaction is my fault!). Heh, I somehow thought it was somebody else. > Hmm, true. I'd almost argue that --force-with-lease, at least in its > default mode with no explicit lease source specified, should allow an > update from X to Y to be a successful noop if the remote "somehow" > already moved to Y. I've already written the --force-with-lease that expects what you have on your remote-tracking branch off as a gross misdesign that should be deprecated in the longer term; I do not have a strong opinion on the tweaks to be done to the feature until it gets dropped ;-)