From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: basic question about push Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:00:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20100125110023.GA8517@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100124081513.GA10700@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vzl43723t.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Russ Paielli , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 25 12:00:33 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 1NZMgJ-0003dH-Oq for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:00:32 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753586Ab0AYLA1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:00:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753565Ab0AYLA0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:00:26 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:38679 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753529Ab0AYLA0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:00:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 6179 invoked by uid 107); 25 Jan 2010 11:05:21 -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, 25 Jan 2010 06:05:21 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:00:23 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzl43723t.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:08:06AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > http://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#push-is-reverse-of-fetch > > I saw somebody referred to this entry and refused to study the entry > immediately after seeing the word "firewalled", saying "my environment is > not firewalled", without trying to judge if the description applies to his > case. This was understandable; the workflow will apply in non-firewalled > case just as well, even though "firewalled" case may be the easiest to see > why it is recommended. > > Perhaps the title of the entry needs to be rewritten to clarify that this > is not _limited_ to a firewalled situation? I agree, and just tweaked the title and text a bit. After doing that, I realized that you had already done so a few hours ago, too. :) So between the two of us, hopefully it is better. -Peff