From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Soffian Subject: Re: PUSH_HEAD, was Re: disallowing push to currently checked-out branch Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:42:35 -0500 Message-ID: <76718490902171442q38dd8977ob5754fc071812f98@mail.gmail.com> References: <7veixybw7u.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <76718490902161312j2aee999bga00d95231fa85647@mail.gmail.com> <76718490902161428k7d252a02i3e79e4f197608891@mail.gmail.com> <20090216225226.GB23764@sigill.intra.peff.net> <76718490902162153m6a524b2dv335be66a0f0294ca@mail.gmail.com> <76718490902170929v3ed9e3c2tb2f7fb1bfc01b3ab@mail.gmail.com> <7vy6w43duw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Jeff King , Sergio Callegari , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 17 23:44:13 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 1LZYfd-0006Qd-Ig for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:44:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753592AbZBQWmh (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:42:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753367AbZBQWmh (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:42:37 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.231]:48982 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752798AbZBQWmg (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:42:36 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g37so2218910rvb.1 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:42:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LWSpXX1vd5QnjYaIvx1G9a5zud7/fLq1W4nSlFn2FpI=; b=GE7j3aOP3G3X/dhQgDdpNq/lMp5vcth1q0UvirFOV4sTnChZ3Q47PhlZx31rDvX5GT M+J9rGrzPuHcHW7tv6sAPwz0qFW2qb3Fr11+S6ON4S72YuqeTaJMxyN/JUbX957jku0J 6PEWdw4yYjba8bFBY8iB6/EAfj8BAxv6qqs6M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=huNVBqY10eSYbZkWaL4oHvlI7eS6Uv93MC8UtvOyVxsH21sl4MqRPudqh8MyTR38ne snwLsL9fKzmyt63ibZME6e5nXWjruhl6lNN0JxHtng0tSd3stHhAULp9ipckIv3CEsEM PCjsCNe2XXfhzS0+ZBFvjcifX5P48Gx0Pt62c= Received: by 10.140.157.1 with SMTP id f1mr2779249rve.196.1234910555567; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:42:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7vy6w43duw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jay Soffian writes: > >> So both you and Junio have changed your mind since that thread then. > > At least I didn't. Ah, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your intent from that thread then. > I personally was not too worried about protecting either local branches > nor the current branch (and I do not lose sleep over them now either). > Either is about forbidding an end user who knows from doing an operation > we have allowed so far, only because an abuse of the feature by other end > users who either don't know what they are doing or are careless can result > in confusing the latter. I do not particularly like that kind of safety > valve. > > The current round of protecting only local branches is there because it is > of much lessor impact, with simpler code (and easier revertibility if > needed), than the full blown "protect these branches" one in which issues > in its design still has to be ironed out if we go that route (see my other > message from yesterday to Jeff --- we discuss exactly that in the context > of detached HEAD and other operations). The need for "current branch > protection" this round implements also comes from an observed confusions > in real world users Dscho and others saw on #git and other places. The > more general "protect these branches" is conceptually nicer but the need > for such safeguard is still under discussion as far as I understood what > was said in the recent discussions. Okay, that makes sense. j.