4 ms·

Interesting, thanks for the example, works exactly as you said. There is a race when dev A deletes master though, right? What if someone else made a commit be

by draebek 16y ago

Interesting, thanks for the example, works exactly as you said. There is a race when dev A deletes master though, right? What if someone else made a commit between when dev A last pulled and when dev A deletes master, wouldn't that commit be lost? In the process of testing this I managed to lose dev B's work a couple times, so I still think this kind of operation is too risky to be worthwhile. In case anyone is interested I made a test script based on Xurinos's example: https://gist.github.com/769904 https://gist.github.com/769904

Xurinos 16y ago
There is a race when dev A deletes master though, right? Yes and no. I could say that this is where communication can help a little, and it depends entirely on your local group's policies, but that would be the easy cop-out. Let's say it really happened. Dev B's git pull --rebase will also lose the change; it was assumed to be pushed up, and a git fetch means that you are reflecting exactly what is in the remote branch. But changes are never truly lost+++. Dev B can check his reflog, find his original commit, and cherry-pick it in, resubmitting it. Afterwards, he can bonk Dev A over the head for not pulling before pushing. There is a danger that Dev B would not notice, but from a little test I just did, he is going to get some nasty messages during his git pull --rebase that should indicate that something interesting just happened. I have not looked into this, but does anyone know if it is possible to lock a remote git repo (aside from the automatic push lock)? If one could manually lock the repo, the process would be to lock, pull, push-delete, push-for-real, and unlock. +++ depending on your git configuration policy. I think you have 30 days before dangling commits are truly pruned permanently.
- draebek 16y ago
  > I have not looked into this, but does anyone know if it is possible to lock a remote git repo (aside from the automatic push lock)? If one could manually lock the repo, the process would be to lock, pull, push-delete, push-for-real, and unlock. Or maybe if Git could do a "test and set" on a ref? For example, instead of two step delete and recreate, how about "git push origin +master": forced update, but your Git sends "update master to 1234abcd iff your current master is 5678fedc" where 5678fedc is where origin/master points on your local Git. If someone had snuck in a new commit Git would then fail and you could deal with it. (Of course, on a busy shared repository "deal with it" could take a while if people keep sneaking in commits; but I suspect that kind of commit volume is very rare.)
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    Oh! I made a mistake. You do not have to delete or use the special config flag if you use --force for your push. I wondered why I remembered doing this on side branches. With --force, we do not have to do this. Also, I think you need to make sure you have -u on this kind of push so that you maintain your tracking connection, but I am not 100% positive. Don't do this: git push origin :master Do this: git push -u --force origin master:master

by draebek 16y ago

Xurinos 16y ago

There is a race when dev A deletes master though, right? Yes and no. I could say that this is where communication can help a little, and it depends entirely on your local group's policies, but that would be the easy cop-out. Let's say it really happened. Dev B's git pull --rebase will also lose the change; it was assumed to be pushed up, and a git fetch means that you are reflecting exactly what is in the remote branch. But changes are never truly lost+++. Dev B can check his reflog, find his original commit, and cherry-pick it in, resubmitting it. Afterwards, he can bonk Dev A over the head for not pulling before pushing. There is a danger that Dev B would not notice, but from a little test I just did, he is going to get some nasty messages during his git pull --rebase that should indicate that something interesting just happened. I have not looked into this, but does anyone know if it is possible to lock a remote git repo (aside from the automatic push lock)? If one could manually lock the repo, the process would be to lock, pull, push-delete, push-for-real, and unlock. +++ depending on your git configuration policy. I think you have 30 days before dangling commits are truly pruned permanently.

draebek 16y ago
> I have not looked into this, but does anyone know if it is possible to lock a remote git repo (aside from the automatic push lock)? If one could manually lock the repo, the process would be to lock, pull, push-delete, push-for-real, and unlock. Or maybe if Git could do a "test and set" on a ref? For example, instead of two step delete and recreate, how about "git push origin +master": forced update, but your Git sends "update master to 1234abcd iff your current master is 5678fedc" where 5678fedc is where origin/master points on your local Git. If someone had snuck in a new commit Git would then fail and you could deal with it. (Of course, on a busy shared repository "deal with it" could take a while if people keep sneaking in commits; but I suspect that kind of commit volume is very rare.)
- Xurinos 16y ago
  Oh! I made a mistake. You do not have to delete or use the special config flag if you use --force for your push. I wondered why I remembered doing this on side branches. With --force, we do not have to do this. Also, I think you need to make sure you have -u on this kind of push so that you maintain your tracking connection, but I am not 100% positive. Don't do this: git push origin :master Do this: git push -u --force origin master:master