From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git pull for update of netdev fails. Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:42:55 -0700 Message-ID: <7vodtafc4g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060920080308.673a1e93@localhost.localdomain> <20060920155431.GO8259@pasky.or.cz> <20060920160756.GP8259@pasky.or.cz> <20060920163437.GC23260@spearce.org> <20060920212747.GB24415@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Pearce X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 20 23:43:11 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQ9qO-0002l6-9K for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:43:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932152AbWITVm6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:42:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932159AbWITVm5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:42:57 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.241.35]:1993 "EHLO fed1rmmtao04.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932152AbWITVm5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:42:57 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060920214254.LWLO6711.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:42:54 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Qlii1V00W1kojtg0000000 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:42:42 -0400 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:37:12 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > I'd rather set another config variable with --shared, which tells git to > refuse receiving non-fast-forwards. This could be a sensible setting in > other setups than shared ones after all. Thoughts? If this option is meant to forbid fixing up an screw-up by doing "git-push --force", I do not quite like it. It sounds as if arguing that "rm -fr" is dangerous so presence of -f and -r at the same time should imply -i option. I think the right answer is not making -i implied, but train the user to understand what -fr means before using it.