git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	Sergio Callegari <sergio.callegari@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PUSH_HEAD, was Re: disallowing push to currently checked-out  branch
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:20:07 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vy6w43duw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 76718490902170929v3ed9e3c2tb2f7fb1bfc01b3ab@mail.gmail.com

Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> writes:

> So both you and Junio have changed your mind since that thread then.

At least I didn't.

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.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-02-17 22:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-15 21:31 [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible Junio C Hamano
2009-02-15 21:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-15 22:56   ` Jakub Narebski
2009-02-15 23:39     ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-15 23:20 ` Heikki Orsila
2009-02-16  0:04   ` disallowing push to currently checked-out branch Jeff King
2009-02-16  1:33     ` david
2009-02-16  1:47       ` david
2009-02-16  1:30         ` Julian Phillips
2009-02-16  4:01         ` Jeff King
2009-02-16  8:33         ` Daniel Barkalow
2009-02-16  8:51           ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16 10:17             ` Sergio Callegari
2009-02-16 13:58               ` Jeff King
2009-02-16 17:13                 ` Sergio Callegari
2009-02-16 17:33                   ` Matthieu Moy
2009-02-16 17:43                   ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 18:48                     ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-16 20:02                       ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 21:12                         ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-16 21:15                           ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 22:28                             ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-16 22:52                               ` Jeff King
2009-02-17  5:53                                 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-17 11:28                                   ` PUSH_HEAD, was " Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-17 17:29                                     ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-17 19:48                                       ` Jeff King
2009-02-17 22:20                                       ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2009-02-17 22:42                                         ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-17 22:54                                       ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 19:24                     ` Sergio Callegari
2009-02-16 20:09                       ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 21:42                         ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-17  0:07                         ` Sergio Callegari
2009-02-17  0:18                           ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-17  0:41                             ` Sergio Callegari
2009-02-17  0:56                               ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-17  1:18                                 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-17  0:57                               ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16 21:43                       ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16 22:43                         ` Jeff King
2009-02-16 23:23                           ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-17  0:23                             ` Jeff King
2009-02-17  0:43                               ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-17  1:29                                 ` Jeff King
2009-02-16  3:50       ` Jeff King
2009-02-16  5:05         ` david
2009-02-16  4:05           ` Jeff King
2009-02-16  5:18             ` david
2009-02-16  4:37               ` Jeff King
2009-02-16  5:55                 ` david
2009-02-16  5:06                   ` Jeff King
2009-02-16 10:53                     ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 10:50                   ` dashed commands, was " Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-15 23:53 ` [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible david
2009-02-15 23:01   ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-15 23:36     ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16  0:14     ` david
2009-02-15 23:18       ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16  0:38         ` david
2009-02-16  0:29           ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16 10:23           ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-16 15:33             ` david
2009-02-16 14:40               ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-02-16  0:02       ` disallowing push to currently checked-out branch Jeff King
2009-02-16 10:06         ` Sergio Callegari
2009-02-15 23:01   ` [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible Jakub Narebski
2009-02-15 23:15     ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-15 23:38       ` Jakub Narebski
2009-02-16  0:35       ` david
2009-02-16  0:07   ` send-email sending shallow threads by default Jeff King
2009-02-16  0:09     ` Pieter de Bie
2009-02-16  2:43       ` Jeff King
2009-02-16  2:55         ` Brian Gernhardt
2009-02-16  9:56         ` Wincent Colaiuta
2009-02-16  7:55     ` SZEDER Gábor
2009-02-16 10:38     ` Martin Mares
2009-02-17  8:34       ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-02-17  9:06         ` Martin Mares
2009-02-17 19:28           ` Jeff King
2009-02-20  3:03             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-20  3:26               ` Jeff King
2009-02-20  4:13                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-17  8:30     ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-02-16  1:27   ` [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible Sitaram Chamarty
2009-02-16  8:04   ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-02-16  8:49     ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16  9:07       ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-02-16  2:42 ` [RFC - draft #2] " Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16  3:20   ` Jeff King
2009-02-16 21:10   ` Jakub Narebski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7vy6w43duw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jaysoffian@gmail.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=sergio.callegari@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).