Re: [RFC/PATCH] fetch: bigger forced-update warnings
From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:51:59
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 02:53:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Some branches are expected to rewind, so the prominent warning would be annoying. However, git doesn't know what the expectation is for a particular branch. We can have it guess by peeking at the lost couple of reflog entries. If wes/lost/last/
Oops, thanks.
This is slightly offtopic, but I have been wondering if this approach do the right thing for "git pull". Wouldn't the underlying "git fetch" give a warning, and then the calling "git pull" go ahead and make a merge, scrolling the warning away with the merge/update summary diffstat? That would be a larger change if "git pull" needs to stash away the warning message, do its thing and then spit out the warning later.
I think this particular warning has nothing to do with git-pull. But
rather, that we should _always_ abort a pull with a forced-update.
Because the only sane things to do there are:
1. Stop and look around, and see if you should be doing a "git reset"
first.
or
2. "git pull --rebase"
But proceeding with the pull just seems like a disaster. So it is not
about "this usually fast forwards, but isn't now, so let's make the
warning bigger". It is more about noticing that it is a forced-update at
all. Maybe that's what you meant by "off-topic". :)
quoted
+static int forced_update_is_uncommon(const char *ref) +{ + struct update_counts uc; + memset(&uc, 0, sizeof(&uc)); + if (for_each_recent_reflog_ent(ref, count_updates, 4096, &uc) < 0) + for_each_reflog_ent(ref, count_updates, &uc); + return uc.fastforward && uc.forced <= 1; /* 1 for the one we just did */ +}Looks sensible.
Now we just need to paint the shed. :) -Peff