linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] push: make "HEAD:tags/my-tag" consistently push to a branch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <xmqq4l4ily9l.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:05:26 -0700
From:   Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
To:     Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@...il.com>
Cc:     git@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: make "HEAD:tags/my-tag" consistently push to a branch

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@...il.com> writes:

> This resulted in a case[1] where someone on LKML did:
>
>     git push kvm +HEAD:tags/for-linus
>
> Which would have created a new "refs/heads/tags/for-linus" branch in
> their "kvm" repository. But since they happened to have an existing
> "refs/tags/for-linus" reference we pushed there instead, and replaced
> an annotated tag with a lightweight tag.

I do not think that is a problematic behaviour in the context of
asking Linus to pull when every time a merge window opens.  One
would keep refs/tags/for-linus at the publishing site, and update it
(forcing as necessary) before request-pull.  If it went to a branch
with confusing name tags/for-linus, that would be a disaster.

> Now we'll print out the following advice when this happens, and act
> differently as described therein:
>
>     hint: The <dst> part of the refspec matched both of:
>     hint:
>     hint:   1. tags/my-tag -> refs/tags/my-tag
>     hint:   2. tags/my-tag -> refs/heads/tags/my-tag
>     hint:
>     hint: Earlier versions of git would have picked (1) as the RHS starts
>     hint: with a second-level ref prefix which could be fully-qualified by
>     hint: adding 'refs/' in front of it. We now pick (2) which uses the prefix
>     hint: inferred from the <src> part of the refspec.
>     hint:
>     hint: See the "<refspec>..." rules  discussed in 'git help push'.

"matched" in past tense means that your example scenario actually
has such a confusing branch?  Then I think the above is OK (or just
silently updating the branch is also fine, I think).  If there were
no such branch currently, the above woudl be a serious regression,
but as long as both exist, I think it is probably OK.  From my quick
scan of your new tests, I couldn't quite tell if that case (i.e. the
a tag "my-tag" exists but a bbranch "tags/my-tag"does not exist at
the receiving end when push happens, and the tag is updated without
touching the branch nor giving extra warnings and hints) is covered,
though.

Thanks.