Re: pgsql: Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 14:56, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2011 01:49 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 02:00, Joe Conway<mail(at)joeconway(dot)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(at)postgresql(dot)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/