Sam Vilain wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> I don't understand the design choice here: git had two options to >>> avoid this scenario: >> >> Actually, there are no such "design choices". That's entirely >> up to the repository owners to arrange post-update hook, to >> allow you to do anything you want. >> >> The default is not to encourage people (who do not know what >> they are doing anyway) to push into non-bare repository. >> > > Maybe it's worth making it an error (that can be forced) if you're > pushing to the head that's checked out in a non-bare repository ? > > It's pretty nasty behaviour for people used to darcs / bzr et al. Perhaps it would be for the best. BUT unless you arrange some fancy post-update hook you have two sane choices: * push to bare repository, with 1:1 refs mapping * push to non-bare repository, but with mapping pushed refs on pushee to remotes refs (remote / tracking branches) on remote side. In all other choices there madness lies... ;-) -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - 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