From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A349C433E0 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522D62073E for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=smartsoftwareinc.com header.i=@smartsoftwareinc.com header.b="Jues4orV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728850AbgFVUwy (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:52:54 -0400 Received: from mail.smartsoftwareinc.com ([24.230.151.194]:43922 "EHLO mail.smartsoftwareinc.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728421AbgFVUwy (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:52:54 -0400 Received: from mward.lin.pirsss (unknown [10.0.0.166]) by mail.smartsoftwareinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFF936213A; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:52:50 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=smartsoftwareinc.com; s=default; t=1592859171; bh=H5+V22XBD1MoktFmscmVoDSPo03N+X7ZCyBFqCJ47pM=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Jues4orVMG0ABj2dQ0+3WaF28NN+6jWdA65oIv2MSLZuzDzIfg6HL9Ibzy1nFX7E3 IEHZKnsiNqNQMIWTbR/epJXajQEV/MKZJ1zcwPwtFIGxBfAozGmZWJjNg7KVheg4/1 xvE5D2i3M/CcEdmZbaUImerUV4hajp/rVR6MyZLA= Subject: Re: Git 2 force commits but Git 1 doesn't To: "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org References: <20200622202122.GO6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> <20200622204346.GP6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> From: Michael Ward Organization: Smart Software Solutions, Inc. Message-ID: <8ad16219-2426-6127-b41d-bb3007a9b993@smartsoftwareinc.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:52:50 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200622204346.GP6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-smartsoftware-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-smartsoftware-MailScanner-ID: CFF936213A.A7E33 X-smartsoftware-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-smartsoftware-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.3, required 4, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU) X-smartsoftware-MailScanner-From: mward@smartsoftwareinc.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Using the steps from my original email for how I had the repository set up (any user authentication scheme works), clone 2 copies from that repository (call them A and B). Make, commit, and push a change in A. Then make, commit, and push a change in B (without first pulling). With the 1.8 client, B will prompt that you're out of date and need to update. With the 2.26 client, B's commit will be pushed and be forced. Thanks for your help. Michael On 6/22/20 3:43 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2020-06-22 at 20:30:06, Michael Ward wrote: >> Versions in use are 2.27.2 and 1.8.3.1. This behavior is seen with regular >> pushes. >> >> I'll look into the http-backend functionality. If that will help control >> that, we'll definitely want to use that instead. What surprises me, though, >> is that even with DAV a 1.8 client appears to work correctly in that it will >> warn the user that their push is about to clobber the head, but 2.27 >> doesn't. > If you can provide a set of reproduction steps for this, I'd be happy to > write a patch to fix it. We should do the right thing for non-force > pushes in both cases. > > I will say that overall, few people use the DAV-based protocol, since > it's significantly less efficient than the smart protocol, so it doesn't > surprise me that there may be bugs there.