On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 03:33:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> It may even make sense to have "git push" honor it, excluding them > >> from "git push --mirror" (or "git push --all" if some of the > >> branches are hidden); I haven't thought things through, though. > > > > That is harder, as that is something that happens on the client. How > > does the client learn about the transfer.hiderefs setting on the remote? > > No, I was talking about running "git push" from a repository that > has the transfer.hiderefs set, emulating a fetch from a client by > pushing out in the reverse direction. Ah. That seems a bit more questionable to me, as you are assuming that the face that the repository shows to network clients is the same as it would show when it is the client itself. That wouldn't be true, for example, when pushing to a backup repository which would expect to get everything. Of course the same problem comes from a backup repository which wants to fetch from you. Which again comes down to the fact that I think this ref-hiding is really in the eye of the receiver, not the sender. -Peff -- 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