This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Moving to git
- From: Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gnu dot org" <gcc at gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 01:44:09 +0300
- Subject: Re: Moving to git
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55D61512 dot 8010002 at redhat dot com> <55D61B23 dot 3000309 at redhat dot com> <55D63403 dot 4000603 at redhat dot com>
On 08/20/2015 11:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Absolutely, a non-fast-forward push is anathema for anything other people might
> be working on. The git repository already prohibits this; people that want to
> push-rebase-push their own branches need to delete the branch before pushing again.
> There are many opinions about best practices, but I don't think any of them are
> enough better than what we already do to justify a change.
Regardless of what the non-fast-forward-push policy will be (please don't get me
wrong - I'm not trying to meddle into development of policies), why is deleting
and pushing a branch again better than pushing with force? AFAIK, git tracks
remote branches just by their names, so, for example if user A checked out user
B's branch, and B later deleted it and pushed again after, perhaps, rebasing
locally, then user A will get a conflict, if he tries to pull (same result as
with "git push -f").