From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Managing websites with git Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:07:54 -0800 Message-ID: <7vd4gapf91.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20081130170722.GJ6572@eratosthenes.sbcglobal.net> <20081130172717.GA7047@coredump.intra.peff.net> <87k5ajflp0.fsf@sparse.dyndns.org> <20081202011154.GA6390@coredump.intra.peff.net> <87vdu2po5l.fsf@sparse.dyndns.org> <20081202165507.GA15826@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jason Riedy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 02 20:09:41 2008 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 1L7ack-0007x5-05 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:09:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754004AbYLBTII (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:08:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752507AbYLBTIH (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:08:07 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:62406 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752435AbYLBTIG (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:08:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0614717F18; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:08:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A361A17F11; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:07:56 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8A666B00-C0A4-11DD-B9B8-F83E113D384A-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:55:34AM -0500, Jason Riedy wrote: > >> Ah, ok, thanks! Issuing a warning makes sense. I'm not sure if >> denying such a push by default does... > ... > It shouldn't make you change how you work. At most, it will break an > existing setup until you set receive.denycurrentbranch to false (again, > if and when the default value changes). You can prepare for any such > change now by pre-emptively setting the config value. True. But "pre-emptively" is a bit misleading. Please realize that the warning is not about "this is a risky thing to do, you've been warned", but is about "the behaviour to allow this may change in the future; if you rely on it please set this config before that happens". We may end up not flipping the default for a long time, but setting the config also has the side effect of squelching the warning, so it never hurts to set it now.