Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> "Sitaram" == Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Sitaram> As git is used more and more in corporate-type environments, at some > > Sitaram> point it becomes convenient to have *branches* (or more accurately, > > Sitaram> refs) that are not readable. > > But that alone would make it rather painfull for the user : "git > clone" would fail if any branch in the repository is not readable, for > example. No, what Sitaram is asking for is to have upload-pack not advertise the hidden branches. By not advertising them, the client cannot send a "want" request for them, and they won't appear in the list that clone believes exists when it creates the new local repository. Thus, clone would succeed. > Also, don't forget that branches are just references, which means that > if you prevent reference A from being uploaded, then another reference > B may point to the same commits as A, and then you can bypass the > safety hook on A by using B. Yes. But this is no different than having two different git repositories, A.git and B.git. Pushing commits from A.git into B.git allows someone to bypass A.git's filesystem read access control by instead reading those commits from B.git. IOW, those who have access to the data must protect it. You can't do it entirely in software, especially when you don't control the user's computer. -- 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