Hi Samuel & Junio, On 2015-04-01 03:36, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I would expect if you push to an empty repo, it would update it >>> (because denyCurrentBranch = updateInstead). >> >> Good finding. >> >> I think the current implementation of updateInstead is set up to >> bootstrap from an empty repository but only supports incremental >> updates once the receiving repository and its working tree gets set >> up. But I do not think it was a conscious design decison to forbid >> bootstrapping an empty repository, but was a mere gap in the >> implementation. At least, I do not think of a reason why we should >> forbid it (and I am Cc'ing Dscho to confirm). > > This is a tangent but I think we should unify the "do we already > have history behind HEAD, or is the current branch still unborn" > test done by various commands and tighten it. Right, I did not think about that use case at all. > As a quick and dirty hack, I just mimicked what builtin/merge.c seems to do, but this would tell a detached HEAD that points at a nonsense object name (i.e. "abcde" not a full 40-hex) as "unborn", where we would be better off stopping the operation instead of making the repository breakage worse by doing further damage. Yeah, and we could refactor that into a global function, too. But for the moment, I think your proposed patch is good enough. Ciao, Dscho -- 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