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

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?

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