From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] push: teach push to be quiet if local ref is strict subset of remote ref Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:51:50 -0700 Message-ID: <7vve8nglrt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1193593581312-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935812741-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <1193593581114-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <1193593581486-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935812185-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935822846-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935821136-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935823045-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935821800-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935823496-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <11935935821192-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <7vfxztm2dx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <52171BF7-50E2-473E-A0BD-CB64D38FD502@zib.de> <7vejfcl8aj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v8x5jiseh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 31 19:52:21 2007 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 1InIfj-0007Wm-5Y for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754038AbXJaSv5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753653AbXJaSv5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:51:57 -0400 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:39774 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751147AbXJaSv4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:51:56 -0400 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBA02F2; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7402590B9B; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:52:14 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Steffen Prohaska's message of "Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:50:01 +0100") 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: Steffen Prohaska writes: > On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I would not doubt it would be safer for _your_ workflow, but you >> should consider the risk of making things more cumbersome for >> workflows of others by enforcing that policy. > > Together with the '--create' flag it would be safer in all > cases, because it would always do _less_ than what git push > currently does. The safest choice would be if "git push" > refused to do anything until configured appropriately. > > "safer" is independent of the workflow. By your definition, a command that does not do anything by default is safer regardless of the workflow. That may be theoretically true --- it cannot do any harm by default. But that is not useful. > I'm mainly interested in using git against a shared repo, > and make it as simple and as safe as possible to use in > such a setup. I suspect that git is more optimized for the > workflow used for the Linux kernel and for developing git, > which heavily rely on sending patches to mailing lists and > pulling fro read-only repos. You forgot a lot more important part. Pushing into publishing repositories. And the discussion is about git-push command.