[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VC mode and git

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: VC mode and git
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 22:10:12 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  
> address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:58:54 -0400
> >> >   . using the script, the commit+push are not an atomic operation, so
> >> >     the commit could succeed, but the following push could fail,
> >> >     leaving your repository out of sync
> >> That's true: we need to uncommit if the push fails.
> >> BTW, we could/should make this case very rare by adding a pre-commit
> >> hook which makes sure that we're up-to-date before we can commit.
> > That's not a job for a pre-commit hook, IMO.
> Why not?

The explanation was in the part that you elided.

> That would avoid the kind of state Richard go into, IIUC.

Not if there are merge conflicts when pulling.

> That's also what Bzr would do on a bound branch.

Git ain't no bzr.

> >> I don't see why Richard (or someone in his situation) would ever need to
> >> do a local commit.
> > I think you forget commits after a conflict resolution, e.g. after a
> > merge from another branch.
> No I don't (you had already mentioned it in the text I quoted).
> There's no reason why these commits should be local.

IMO, it makes no sense to push them right away.  It would violate the
"commit complete changesets" rule.

> > I'm sure there are more situations like that.  I don't think we can
> > assume that absolutely _every_ commit can do a push upstream.
> Bzr bound branches did just that and it's never been a problem
> (i.e. --local was only ever needed for offline operation).

Git ain't no bzr.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]