"W. Trevor King" <wking@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: "W. Trevor King" <wking@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> acd2a45 (Refuse updating the current branch in a non-bare repository
> via push, 2009-02-11) changed the default to refuse such a push, but
> it forgot to update the docs.
>
> 7d182f5 (Documentation: receive.denyCurrentBranch defaults to
> 'refuse', 2010-03-17) updated Documentation/config.txt, but forgot to
> update the user manual.
>
> Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/user-manual.txt | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> index 222545b..8524c08 100644
> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> @@ -1988,8 +1988,10 @@ handling this case.
> Note that the target of a "push" is normally a
> <<def_bare_repository,bare>> repository. You can also push to a
> repository that has a checked-out working tree, but the working tree
> -will not be updated by the push. This may lead to unexpected results if
> -the branch you push to is the currently checked-out branch!
> +will not be updated by the push. To protect against this, pushes to
> +the currently checked-out branch of a repository are denied by
> +default. See the description of the receive.denyCurrentBranch option
> +in linkgit:git-config[1] for details.
Nobody else felt the same logic gap between "will not be updated"
and "to protect against this" I sensed while reading this?
I would not be surprised if some readers felt as if "then why not
update it instead of rejecting?" were a valid question, without a
bit more explanation.
You can also push to a repository that has a working tree,
but a push to the currently checked out branch is denied for
two reasons:
(1) if the push were allowed to update the working tree to
match the pushed commit, it will overwrite and lose the
work in progress in the working tree;
(2) the push does _not_ update the working tree for the
above reason, but then if the push were allowed to
update the tip of the branch, the next commit made based
on the work done in the working tree will be based on
the state of the tree _before_ the push but will be
recorded as a descendant of the pushed commit, reverting
changes to the contents made by the pushed commit.
If you want to handle the above two risks yourself (e.g. you
can promise that you will never make changes to the files in
the working tree or make commit from the working tree, and
install a post-push hook that does "git reset --hard" to
match the working tree state to the commit that was pushed),
you can override this by setting receive.denyCurrentBranch.
It almost makes me wonder if it also makes sense to supersede the
denyCurrentBranch setting with a new receive.currentBranch variable
(setting it to "deny" is equivalent to setting denyCurrentBranch to
true), and make "receive.currentBranch = reset" to allow a push and
always run "git reset --hard" afterwards.
If we were to do so, I would strongly be against adding "checkout"
mode that does "git reset --keep" instead of "--hard". Those who can
accept the unconditional ovewriting with "reset --hard" are the only
ones that are safe if "push" updated the tip of the branch and the
working tree. Updating the working tree with a "reset --keep" may
appear safe because it will catch the case where a file that needs
updating by "push" is modified, but that is an incorrect assumption.
It does not mean nobody has the contents in the editor buffer with
changes yet to be written out. An automated update to the working
tree condition has to be allowed only to a repository with nobody
sitting at the keyboard editing files in there.
--
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