From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Sebrecht Subject: Re: Question about 'branch -d' safety Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:31:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20091229223123.GA12965@vidovic> References: <20091230065442.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Sebrecht To: Nanako Shiraishi X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 29 23:31:48 2009 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 1NPkbS-0000Jg-SC for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:31:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753063AbZL2Wbd (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:31:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751307AbZL2Wbc (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:31:32 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f219.google.com ([209.85.219.219]:60443 "EHLO mail-ew0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752240AbZL2Wbb (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:31:31 -0500 Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so3180730ewy.21 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:31:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rnuh6+uyln3xZMxIpJFVDONLkNWHfcBkGQdG8k1qHS8=; b=pbY0QwsX2hr6MTJWsCVd1vpaiIjX9Kfxp6C5W3C81EwzqED7KeDXKxjhrWp6ijTDvE myO/be7LIKajc1ut8vL6o5N9PWuYdh+neNMc2VmPcWH+C3iD3YtHMRSQsqq/MSA7TSS7 qfHKNdoBAIeUTJarokEAa83TDa9yTSuaUHR98= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=EkmD/yfraxo0qxfivO+O0AVj2Gse3pxtFVNkxjswy9JqxT6B8D6zHBz9UOrYPwjruw MdqbSphrOE3AaOaymAaAxr86rZDR160IqwUOYNe8wUgSrXPZGVProjwqXlsnVU8ARvtU nIaKQSoK+tu4Q7wMjjl8HhCWWfR4fHLGgBWOQ= Received: by 10.213.42.210 with SMTP id t18mr5641469ebe.49.1262125890056; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from @ (83-154-173-109.rev.libertysurf.net [83.154.173.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm9169004ewy.0.2009.12.29.14.31.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:31:26 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091230065442.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: The 30/12/09, Nanako Shiraishi wrote: > I think the safety feature should check if the branch to be deleted is merged to the remote tracking branch it was forked from, instead of checking the current branch. > > What do you think? I think we shouldn't. At first, every repository don't have a remote. This may easily be passed by a "double check" with a logical OR between the two statements. But even with it, we would hit some foreign workflow. Think: Bob directly push to Alice and Alice does the same to Bob. I don't use this kind of workflow myself but I consider them to be sensible enough to have our attention. Now, I'm talking about what users may expect from the default behaviour. I'm not against a new configuration variable. It would certainly give more granularity to the expectation of "what is safe for me". -- Nicolas Sebrecht