+1 for blocking shared branches On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> It looks like there is a lot of support for preventing force pushes on > these branches. I discussed this with Jake offline, he's also ok with > having them blocked. I'll file a ticket with infra. > > -Dan > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Nitin Lamba <nla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 for no force push on shared branches. > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 For no force push > > > > > > --Mark > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Kevin Duling <kdul...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1. Don't turn to the dark side of the --force. > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2017 3:12 PM, "Dan Smith" <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, shared branches was kinda of a vague term. I am talking about > > > > > develop, master, and release*. > > > > > > > > > > I think in general if you are working on a feature branch with > along > > > > other > > > > > people, you also shouldn't force push that feature branch, but for > > the > > > > > moment the proposal is just to protect develop, master, and > release* > > > > > > > > > > I agree with should also block push --delete for develop and > master. > > > > > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Jared Stewart <jstew...@pivotal.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When I say “shared branches”, I’m thinking of develop, master, > and > > > > > > release-* as mentioned by Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It also would seem prudent to block 'git push —delete’ on > shared > > > > > > branches > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that how we clean up feature branches? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Jared Stewart < > > jstew...@pivotal.io > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 to blocking force pushes on shared branches. It also would > > > seem > > > > > > >> prudent to block 'git push —delete’ on shared branches if that > > > isn’t > > > > > > >> already blocked. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Karen and I just spent a long time tracking down weird git > > > history > > > > in > > > > > > her > > > > > > >>> checkout to discover that someone did a force push of the > > > > > geode-native > > > > > > >>> develop. That's not cool, because it screws over anyone with > a > > > copy > > > > > of > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >>> branch and we potentially lost history. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I think we need to do two things. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> 1) Block force pushes on any shared branches (develop, > master, > > > > > > >> release-*). > > > > > > >>> If we are in agreement, I'll file a JIRA with INFRA > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> 2) Figure out what to with geode-native develop. It looks > like > > > > there > > > > > > have > > > > > > >>> been commits since the force push. Do we keep what is on the > > > branch > > > > > > now, > > > > > > >> or > > > > > > >>> try to put it back to what it was? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> -Dan > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> From: jbarr...@apache.org > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> 4:57 PM (20 hours ago) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> to commits > > > > > > >>> Repository: geode-native > > > > > > >>> Updated Branches: > > > > > > >>> refs/heads/develop aff706be2 -> 06e8f39a0 (forced update) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
