geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: A force push happened to geode-native develop!?!
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:25:48 GMT
It looks like there is a lot of support for preventing force pushes on
these branches. I discussed this with Jake offline, he's also ok with
having them blocked. I'll file a ticket with infra.

-Dan

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Nitin Lamba <nlamba@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 for no force push on shared branches.
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbretl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 For no force push
> >
> > --Mark
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Kevin Duling <kduling@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1. Don't turn to the dark side of the --force.
> > >
> > > On Mar 8, 2017 3:12 PM, "Dan Smith" <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, shared branches was kinda of a vague term. I am talking about
> > > > develop, master, and release*.
> > > >
> > > > I think in general if you are working on a feature branch with along
> > > other
> > > > people, you also shouldn't force push that feature branch, but for
> the
> > > > moment the proposal is just to protect develop, master, and release*
> > > >
> > > > I agree with should also block push --delete for develop and master.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Jared Stewart <jstewart@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > When I say “shared branches”, I’m thinking of develop, master,
and
> > > > > release-* as mentioned by Dan.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> It also would seem prudent to block 'git push —delete’
on shared
> > > > > branches
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't that how we clean up feature branches?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Jared Stewart <
> jstewart@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +1 to blocking force pushes on shared branches.  It also
would
> > seem
> > > > > >> prudent to block 'git push —delete’ on shared branches
if that
> > isn’t
> > > > > >> already blocked.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Karen and I just spent a long time tracking down weird
git
> > history
> > > in
> > > > > her
> > > > > >>> checkout to discover that someone did a force push of
the
> > > > geode-native
> > > > > >>> develop. That's not cool, because it screws over anyone
with a
> > copy
> > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>> branch and we potentially lost history.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think we need to do two things.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 1) Block force pushes on any shared branches (develop,
master,
> > > > > >> release-*).
> > > > > >>> If we are in agreement, I'll file a JIRA with INFRA
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 2) Figure out what to with geode-native develop. It
looks like
> > > there
> > > > > have
> > > > > >>> been commits since the force push. Do we keep what is
on the
> > branch
> > > > > now,
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >>> try to put it back to what it was?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> -Dan
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> From: jbarrett@apache.org
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 4:57 PM (20 hours ago)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> to commits
> > > > > >>> Repository: geode-native
> > > > > >>> Updated Branches:
> > > > > >>> refs/heads/develop aff706be2 -> 06e8f39a0 (forced
update)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message