Re: RFC: individual public-inbox/git activity feeds

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Dmitry,

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:15 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> I also tend to conclude that some actions should not be done offline
> and then "synced" a week later. Ted provided an example of starting
> tests in another thread. Or, say if you close a bug and then push than
> update a month later without any regard to the current bug state, that
> may not be the right thing. Working with read-only data offline is
> perfectly fine. Doing _some_ updates locally and then pushing a week
> later is fine (e.g. queue a new patch for review). But not necessary
> all updates should be doable in offline mode. And this seems to be
> inherent conflict with any scheme where one can "queue" any updates
> locally, and then "sync" them anytime later without any regard to the
> current state of things and just tell the system and all other
> participants "deal with it". Also, if we have any kind of
> permissions/quotas, when are these checks done: when one creates an
> update or when it's synced?

Not unlike "git push" accepting fast-forwards only, and rejecting
forced updates.
Hence you cannot push the close of a bug (each bug has its own
branch?) before merging the updated remote state first.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds