Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> 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. Yes, it is meant for stopping exactly that. As the repository owner with direct access to the repository I don't want anyone to be able to use --force to reset a branch. If a branch reset needs to happen I want to do it directly on the repository. Its a rather destructive operation, as we have been saying. I don't want a user slamming in "--force" just because. On the other hand you can also configure the option to allow `git push --force` and craft a smart update hook which looks at who is doing the push and if that is permissible to the ref in question; exit'ing non-zero if not. Basically I don't see why an update hook should be necessary to disallow all non-fast forward pushes. > 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. Some people cannot be trained. No matter how hard you may try. -- Shawn. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html