Обсуждение: pgsql: Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed
Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed.
On 26 June 2011 00:02, <pgsql@postgresql.org> wrote: > Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. What just happened here?! -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: > Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new release branch and it messed up my local repo such that git push --dry-run was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did not :-( Help please... Joe -- Joe Conway credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
Вложения
On 06/25/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: >> Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. > Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new > release branch > > and it messed up my local repo such that > git push --dry-run > > was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: > git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE > > I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did > not :-( > > Why would you be making a new release branch? I don't understand that bit. FYI, git push origin :somewhere pushes nothing to the destination, i.e. empties it out. See git-push man page, examples section. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 06/25/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > > On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: > >> Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. > > Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new > > release branch > > > > and it messed up my local repo such that > > git push --dry-run > > > > was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: > > git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE > > > > I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did > > not :-( > > > > > > Why would you be making a new release branch? I don't understand that bit. > > FYI, > > git push origin :somewhere > > pushes nothing to the destination, i.e. empties it out. See git-push man > page, examples section. I talked to Joe on the phone. He was confused by the git commit wiki section where we talked about creating a release branch: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git#Making_a_new_release_branch_on_origin He thought it was for creating a local release branch. I have udpated the title to be clearer: Making a new release branch on origin He did a git push origin REL9_1_STABLE and all is well --- I can pull his 9.1 changes just fine. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 06/25/2011 04:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 06/25/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: >>> Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. >> Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new >> release branch >> >> and it messed up my local repo such that >> git push --dry-run >> >> was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: >> git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE >> >> I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did >> not :-( > > Why would you be making a new release branch? I don't understand that bit. I was misunderstanding the wiki page when trying to create my own local 9.1 branch. Bruce just helped me restore the origin 9.1 branch. I *think* all is well now. Joe -- Joe Conway credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
Вложения
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 02:00, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 06/25/2011 04:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> On 06/25/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: >>>> Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. >>> Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: >>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new >>> release branch >>> >>> and it messed up my local repo such that >>> git push --dry-run >>> >>> was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: >>> git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE >>> >>> I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did >>> not :-( >> >> Why would you be making a new release branch? I don't understand that bit. > > I was misunderstanding the wiki page when trying to create my own local > 9.1 branch. Bruce just helped me restore the origin 9.1 branch. I > *think* all is well now. We discussed earlier to potentially block the creation, and removal, of branches on the origin server, to prevent mistakes like this. It has only happened once in almost a year, so it's probably not necessary - but I wanted to raise the option anyway in case people forgot about it. The downside would be that in order to create or drop a branch *when intended* a committer would need someone from the infrastructure team to temporarily switch off the branch-blocking setting, and then back on.. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 06/28/2011 01:49 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 02:00, Joe Conway<mail@joeconway.com> wrote: >> On 06/25/2011 04:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> On 06/25/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>>> On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: >>>>> Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. >>>> Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: >>>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new >>>> release branch >>>> >>>> and it messed up my local repo such that >>>> git push --dry-run >>>> >>>> was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: >>>> git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE >>>> >>>> I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did >>>> not :-( >>> Why would you be making a new release branch? I don't understand that bit. >> I was misunderstanding the wiki page when trying to create my own local >> 9.1 branch. Bruce just helped me restore the origin 9.1 branch. I >> *think* all is well now. > We discussed earlier to potentially block the creation, and removal, > of branches on the origin server, to prevent mistakes like this. It > has only happened once in almost a year, so it's probably not > necessary - but I wanted to raise the option anyway in case people > forgot about it. > > The downside would be that in order to create or drop a branch *when > intended* a committer would need someone from the infrastructure team > to temporarily switch off the branch-blocking setting, and then back > on.. I think it's probably a good idea, at least in the case of removal. After all, how often will we intentionally drop a branch? Incidentally, the trouble with what Joe did to recover is that he didn't push exactly what he deleted, so the mail record doesn't contain his commit on the 9.1 branch. Ideally he should have reverted his local branch, pushed that, then recommitted his patch and repushed the branch. cheers andrew
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 14:56, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > On 06/28/2011 01:49 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 02:00, Joe Conway<mail@joeconway.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 06/25/2011 04:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>>> >>>> On 06/25/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 06/25/2011 04:02 PM, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed. >>>>> >>>>> Umm, I was trying to follow the directions here: >>>>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git: Making a new >>>>> release branch >>>>> >>>>> and it messed up my local repo such that >>>>> git push --dry-run >>>>> >>>>> was giving an error. Googling the solution seemed to be: >>>>> git push origin :refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE >>>>> >>>>> I thought that would only affect my local repo, but apparently it did >>>>> not :-( >>>> >>>> Why would you be making a new release branch? I don't understand that >>>> bit. >>> >>> I was misunderstanding the wiki page when trying to create my own local >>> 9.1 branch. Bruce just helped me restore the origin 9.1 branch. I >>> *think* all is well now. >> >> We discussed earlier to potentially block the creation, and removal, >> of branches on the origin server, to prevent mistakes like this. It >> has only happened once in almost a year, so it's probably not >> necessary - but I wanted to raise the option anyway in case people >> forgot about it. >> >> The downside would be that in order to create or drop a branch *when >> intended* a committer would need someone from the infrastructure team >> to temporarily switch off the branch-blocking setting, and then back >> on.. > > > I think it's probably a good idea, at least in the case of removal. After > all, how often will we intentionally drop a branch? yeha. OTOH, how often do we intenrionally *create* a branch? About once / year... > Incidentally, the trouble with what Joe did to recover is that he didn't > push exactly what he deleted, so the mail record doesn't contain his commit > on the 9.1 branch. Ideally he should have reverted his local branch, pushed > that, then recommitted his patch and repushed the branch. Right. The idea behind such a feature would be to protect against *mistakes*, not malice.. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 06/28/2011 07:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Incidentally, the trouble with what Joe did to recover is that he didn't >> push exactly what he deleted, so the mail record doesn't contain his commit >> on the 9.1 branch. Ideally he should have reverted his local branch, pushed >> that, then recommitted his patch and repushed the branch. > > Right. The idea behind such a feature would be to protect against > *mistakes*, not malice.. That *was* a mistake on my part, not malice. In any case, I was shocked that I was able to do what I did, so I would support something that prevents mistakes -- at least big ones such as creating or dropping branches unintentionally. Part of the problem here is that the people who know exactly how to recover are the same ones who are not as likely to make mistakes, and vice-versa. Joe -- Joe Conway credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
Вложения
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:52, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 06/28/2011 07:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> Incidentally, the trouble with what Joe did to recover is that he didn't >>> push exactly what he deleted, so the mail record doesn't contain his commit >>> on the 9.1 branch. Ideally he should have reverted his local branch, pushed >>> that, then recommitted his patch and repushed the branch. >> >> Right. The idea behind such a feature would be to protect against >> *mistakes*, not malice.. > > That *was* a mistake on my part, not malice. Yes, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks anything else! > In any case, I was shocked that I was able to do what I did, so I would > support something that prevents mistakes -- at least big ones such as > creating or dropping branches unintentionally. Part of the problem here > is that the people who know exactly how to recover are the same ones who > are not as likely to make mistakes, and vice-versa. Yeah. Ok, I have the script updated and it was easy to block both creation and removal - it's a simple on/off parameter to the script. We just need consensus on if we want to block just removal, or both removal and creation. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 06/28/2011 08:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:52, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: >> That *was* a mistake on my part, not malice. > > Yes, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks anything else! I would hope so, but the way you quoted me it was a little unclear ;-) > Ok, I have the script updated and it was easy to block both creation > and removal - it's a simple on/off parameter to the script. We just > need consensus on if we want to block just removal, or both removal > and creation. As stated elsewhere on this thread, we normally only create official branches at most once per year or so. Unless we think that is going to change in this brave new world of git, I would vote to block both, but make sure the process to unblock is well documented on the wiki. Joe -- Joe Conway credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support