From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Megacz Subject: "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:41:26 +0000 Organization: Myself Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 18 23:41:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NX0ID-0006TW-8e for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:41:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753260Ab0ARWlw (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:41:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755449Ab0ARWlw (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:41:52 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:45225 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752343Ab0ARWlv (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:41:51 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NX0I7-0006Ro-MA for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:41:47 +0100 Received: from gentzen.megacz.com ([65.23.129.159]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:41:47 +0100 Received: from adam by gentzen.megacz.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:41:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: gentzen.megacz.com X-Home-Page: http://www.megacz.com/ User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/etr3IesbiC8mDGH4t2LLJLrkxM= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: It seems that the message "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" is unnecessary when pushing to a bare "myproject.git" repository (instead of a "myproject/.git" repository). Is this the case? If so, perhaps the warning should be omitted when the target is a bare repository. - a