From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse" Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:04:11 -0800 Message-ID: <7vskmliy2c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090130023040.GR21473@genesis.frugalware.org> <20090211001138.GU21473@genesis.frugalware.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Miklos Vajna X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 11 02:06:04 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 1LX3Y3-0000gR-JJ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:05:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754153AbZBKBEW (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:04:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756349AbZBKBEW (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:04:22 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38097 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752341AbZBKBEV (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:04:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E80F2ADC8; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:04:20 -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 17A842ADF6; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:04:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20090211001138.GU21473@genesis.frugalware.org> (Miklos Vajna's message of "Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:11:38 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E9BB8300-F7D7-11DD-A2B0-6F7C8D1D4FD0-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Miklos Vajna writes: > [ Sorry for the late reply, I did not read my mail recently. ] > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> > Shouldn't this be >> > >> > git config receive.denyCurrentBranch ignore >> > >> > instead of "true"? >> >> Right. >> >> However, as Junio pointed out, we do not want to give this resolution in >> the error message. I am now leaning more to something like >> >> refusing to update checked out branch '%s' in non-bare repository >> >> Hmm? >> >> Old-timers will know "oh, what the hell, I did not mark my repository as >> bare!", and new-timers will no longer be confused. > > So in an "I know what I'm doing" mode, is "git config core.bare true" in > a non-bare repo considered as a better workaround than using "git config > receive.denyCurrentBranch ignore"? If you have to ask, you do not know what you're doing ;-)