Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] push doc: correct lies about how push refspecs work

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

I.e. the non-refs/{tags,heads}/* update logic treats all updates to
tags/commits as branch updates. We just look at the tag v2.18.0, see you
want to replace it with the commit v2.19.0-rc0^{} and see "oh, that's a
fast-forward".

In my old message you are responding to, I asked what you meant by
"will be treated as branches", and after seeing "as branch updates"
above, I think I know what you want the phrase to mean, namely, that
old-to-new transition requires new to be a descendant of old.  But I
think that is weaker than what other people (including me) thinks of
rules to update refs/heads/* hierarchy (i.e. "branch update").

You are allowing to store an object that is not a commit in
refs/blah/my-tag in your example, so it clearly does not protect the
ref with an extra rule that applies to "branches", namely, "it has
to be a commit."

Arguably that should be changed, but I won't do that in this series.

OK.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:23 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I.e. the non-refs/{tags,heads}/* update logic treats all updates to
tags/commits as branch updates. We just look at the tag v2.18.0, see you
want to replace it with the commit v2.19.0-rc0^{} and see "oh, that's a
fast-forward".

In my old message you are responding to, I asked what you meant by
"will be treated as branches", and after seeing "as branch updates"
above, I think I know what you want the phrase to mean, namely, that
old-to-new transition requires new to be a descendant of old.  But I
think that is weaker than what other people (including me) thinks of
rules to update refs/heads/* hierarchy (i.e. "branch update").

You are allowing to store an object that is not a commit in
refs/blah/my-tag in your example, so it clearly does not protect the
ref with an extra rule that applies to "branches", namely, "it has
to be a commit."

Indeed. This was all confusing. I've reworded in something I'll send
shortly, which should address this confusion.

quoted

Arguably that should be changed, but I won't do that in this series.

OK.