All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method
@ 2013-04-25 11:25 Felipe Contreras
  2013-04-25 14:50 ` Thomas Rast
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2013-04-25 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Felipe Contreras

Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
is the way bazaar's UI does it.

Also, add a non-ff check.

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
---

This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
currently push are not really understood. Perhaps it's similar to a 'git push
 --force', or perhaps it can potentially screw the repository.

It's better to be safe and just do what bazaar does.

 contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
index 8c316fe..cb8d081 100755
--- a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
+++ b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
@@ -639,12 +639,12 @@ def do_export(parser):
     for ref, revid in parsed_refs.iteritems():
         if ref == 'refs/heads/master':
             repo.generate_revision_history(revid, marks.get_tip('master'))
-            revno, revid = repo.last_revision_info()
             if peer:
-                if hasattr(peer, "import_last_revision_info_and_tags"):
-                    peer.import_last_revision_info_and_tags(repo, revno, revid)
-                else:
-                    peer.import_last_revision_info(repo.repository, revno, revid)
+                try:
+                    repo.push(peer, stop_revision=revid)
+                except bzrlib.errors.DivergedBranches:
+                    print "error %s non-fast forward" % ref
+                    continue
             else:
                 wt = repo.bzrdir.open_workingtree()
                 wt.update()
-- 
1.8.2.1

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method
  2013-04-25 11:25 [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method Felipe Contreras
@ 2013-04-25 14:50 ` Thomas Rast
  2013-04-25 21:11   ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Rast @ 2013-04-25 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>
> Also, add a non-ff check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
> currently push are not really understood. Perhaps it's similar to a 'git push
>  --force', or perhaps it can potentially screw the repository.
>
> It's better to be safe and just do what bazaar does.

Other than "this patch should probably go to maint", this should be in
the commit message.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method
  2013-04-25 14:50 ` Thomas Rast
@ 2013-04-25 21:11   ` Junio C Hamano
  2013-04-25 21:41     ` Felipe Contreras
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2013-04-25 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Rast; +Cc: Felipe Contreras, git

Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes:

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
>> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>>
>> Also, add a non-ff check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
>> currently push are not really understood. Perhaps it's similar to a 'git push
>>  --force', or perhaps it can potentially screw the repository.
>>
>> It's better to be safe and just do what bazaar does.
>
> Other than "this patch should probably go to maint", this should be in
> the commit message.

Hmph, should it?

I do not quite understand what "... are not really understood.
Perhaps..." wants to say.  Understood by whom?  By the author of the
patch?  By the author of the original code?

The log would end up saying "Doing the same as bazaar should be the
right thing to do(TM), but don't ask me why.  I do not know what I
am doing, or why checking is better than not checking, but it seems
to work".  That _could_ be the truth, but it won't help people who
are reading the code later, will it?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method
  2013-04-25 21:11   ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2013-04-25 21:41     ` Felipe Contreras
  2013-04-25 21:50       ` Felipe Contreras
  2013-04-25 22:32       ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2013-04-25 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Thomas Rast, git

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
>
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
>>> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>>>
>>> Also, add a non-ff check.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
>>> currently push are not really understood. Perhaps it's similar to a 'git push
>>>  --force', or perhaps it can potentially screw the repository.
>>>
>>> It's better to be safe and just do what bazaar does.
>>
>> Other than "this patch should probably go to maint", this should be in
>> the commit message.
>
> Hmph, should it?
>
> I do not quite understand what "... are not really understood.
> Perhaps..." wants to say.  Understood by whom?  By the author of the
> patch?  By the author of the original code?
>
> The log would end up saying "Doing the same as bazaar should be the
> right thing to do(TM), but don't ask me why.  I do not know what I
> am doing, or why checking is better than not checking, but it seems
> to work".  That _could_ be the truth, but it won't help people who
> are reading the code later, will it?

In addition to that, it's doubtful there's anybody who would actually
know. Bazaar is basically a dead and unmaintained project now, and it
has been for quite some time. It seems the people that had any idea
are long gone.

My gut feeling is that we should do it the way the Bazaar UI does it,
I don't have any evidence that there's anything wrong with the current
code, which Bazaar seems to but have, but for different purposes which
are hard to explain. I would rather avoid surprises.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method
  2013-04-25 21:41     ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2013-04-25 21:50       ` Felipe Contreras
  2013-04-25 22:32       ` Junio C Hamano
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2013-04-25 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Thomas Rast, git

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
>>
>>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
>>>> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>>>>
>>>> Also, add a non-ff check.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
>>>> currently push are not really understood. Perhaps it's similar to a 'git push
>>>>  --force', or perhaps it can potentially screw the repository.
>>>>
>>>> It's better to be safe and just do what bazaar does.
>>>
>>> Other than "this patch should probably go to maint", this should be in
>>> the commit message.
>>
>> Hmph, should it?
>>
>> I do not quite understand what "... are not really understood.
>> Perhaps..." wants to say.  Understood by whom?  By the author of the
>> patch?  By the author of the original code?
>>
>> The log would end up saying "Doing the same as bazaar should be the
>> right thing to do(TM), but don't ask me why.  I do not know what I
>> am doing, or why checking is better than not checking, but it seems
>> to work".  That _could_ be the truth, but it won't help people who
>> are reading the code later, will it?
>
> In addition to that, it's doubtful there's anybody who would actually
> know. Bazaar is basically a dead and unmaintained project now, and it
> has been for quite some time. It seems the people that had any idea
> are long gone.
>
> My gut feeling is that we should do it the way the Bazaar UI does it,
> I don't have any evidence that there's anything wrong with the current
> code, which Bazaar seems to but have, but for different purposes which
> are hard to explain. I would rather avoid surprises.

Er,which Bazaar seems to use, but for different purposes...

-- 
Felipe Contreras

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method
  2013-04-25 21:41     ` Felipe Contreras
  2013-04-25 21:50       ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2013-04-25 22:32       ` Junio C Hamano
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2013-04-25 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Thomas Rast, git

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> My gut feeling is that we should do it the way the Bazaar UI does it,
> I don't have any evidence that there's anything wrong with the current
> code, which Bazaar seems to but have, but for different purposes which
> are hard to explain. I would rather avoid surprises.

That is actually a very fine description for this change ;-).

commit 473b7aac9f542dc22cfff0c264e96d8dbbd9d895
Author: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Apr 25 06:25:37 2013 -0500

    remote-bzr: use proper push method
    
    Do not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at
    all.
    
    I don't have any evidence that there's anything wrong with the
    current code, which Bazaar seems to use, but for different purposes.
    Let's use the logic Bazaar UI uses to avoid surprises.
    
    Also, add a non-ff check.
    
    Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
    Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-04-25 22:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-04-25 11:25 [PATCH] remote-bzr: use proper push method Felipe Contreras
2013-04-25 14:50 ` Thomas Rast
2013-04-25 21:11   ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-25 21:41     ` Felipe Contreras
2013-04-25 21:50       ` Felipe Contreras
2013-04-25 22:32       ` Junio C Hamano

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.