Johan Herland <[email protected]> writes:
> Overnight, it occured to me that --force-if-expected could be
> simplified by leveraging the existing --force option; for the above
> two examples, respectively:
>
> $ git push --force --expect
> # validate foo @ origin == @{upstream} before pushing
>
> and
>
> $ git push --force --expect=refs/original/foo my_remote HEAD:foo
> # validate foo @ my_remote == refs/original/foo before pushing
First, on the name.
I do not think either "--validate" or "--expect" is particularly a
good one. The former lets this feature squat on a good name that
covers a much broader spectrum, forbidding people from adding other
kinds of validation later. "--expect" is slightly less bad in that
sense; saying "we expect this" does imply "otherwise it is an
unexpected situation and we would fail", but the name still does not
feel ideal.
What is the essense of compare-and-swap? Perhaps we can find a good
word by thinking that question through.
To me, it is a way to implement a "lock" on the remote ref without
actually taking a lock (which would leave us open for a stale lock),
and this "lock"-ness is what we want in order to guarantee safety.
So we could perhaps call it "--lockref"?
I'll leave the name open but tentatively use this name in the
following, primarily to see how well it sits on the command line
examples.
Then on the semantics/substance.
I had quite a similar thought as you had while reading your initial
response. In the most generic form, we would want to be able to
pass necessary information fully via the option, i.e.
--lockref=theirRefName:expectedValue
but when the option is spelled without details, we could fill in the
default values by making a reasonable guess of what the user could
have meant. If we only have --lockref without refname nor value,
then we will enable the safety for _all_ refs that we are going to
update during this push. If we have --lockref=theirRefName without
the expected value for that ref, we will enable the safety only for
the ref (you can give more than one --lockref=theirRefName), and
guess what value we should expect. If we have a fully specified
option, we do not have to guess the value.
And for the expected value, when we have a tracking branch for the
branch at the remote we are trying to update, its value is a very
good guess of what the user meant.
Note, however, that this is very different from @{upstream}.
You could be pushing a branch "frotz", that is configured to
integrate with "master" taken from "origin", but
(1) to a branch different from "master" of "origin", e.g.
$ git push --lockref origin frotz:nitfol
$ git push --lockref origin :nitfol ;# deleting
(2) even to a branch of a remote that is different from "origin",
e.g.
$ git push --lockref xyzzy frotz:nitfol
$ git push --lockref xyzzy :nitfol ;# deleting
Even in these case, if you have a remote tracking branch for the
destination (i.e. you have refs/remotes/origin/nitfol in case (1) or
refs/remotes/xyzzy/nitfol in case (2) to be updated by fetching from
origin or xyzzy), we can and should use that value as the default.
There is no room for frotz@{upstream} (or @{upstream} of the current
branch) to get in the picture.
Except when you happen to be pushing with "push.default = upstream",
that is. But that is a natural consequence of the more generic
check with "our remote tracking branch of the branch we are updating
at the remote" rule.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
