From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Deleting the "current" branch in remote bare repositories Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:36:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20090209183623.GA27255@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090207162754.5fb8b63f@perceptron> <94a0d4530902071405m33a0804er8030e14bea205898@mail.gmail.com> <20090208011802.2b7b9e74@perceptron> <7v1vu91d00.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090208111838.GD14359@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v8wogzr3v.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090209182843.GA27109@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jan =?utf-8?Q?Kr=C3=BCger?= , Felipe Contreras , Git ML , obrien654j@gmail.com To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 09 19:37:56 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LWb0z-0001db-MQ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:37:54 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753243AbZBISg0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:36:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752637AbZBISg0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:36:26 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:37716 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751891AbZBISgZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:36:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 4179 invoked by uid 107); 9 Feb 2009 18:36:41 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:36:41 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:36:23 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090209182843.GA27109@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 01:28:43PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > Here are two reasons why we might not want to conflate the two safety > valves: Argh, sorry, I'm an idiot. For some reason when I saw "receive.denyDeleteCurrent" I read "receive.denyCurrentBranch" (and if you look carefully in the thread, I even _typed_ it wrong, too!). So I read your emails as "we should put this new safety valve under the same option as the other one" which you are of course not proposing at all. Please disregard this last email (and the one before it, but you have already responded to that ;) ). And I will ask a doctor to remove the brain tumor that is clearly inhibiting my reading comprehension. -Peff