Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@xxxxxx> writes: > On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I would not doubt it would be safer for _your_ workflow, but you >> should consider the risk of making things more cumbersome for >> workflows of others by enforcing that policy. > > Together with the '--create' flag it would be safer in all > cases, because it would always do _less_ than what git push > currently does. The safest choice would be if "git push" > refused to do anything until configured appropriately. > > "safer" is independent of the workflow. By your definition, a command that does not do anything by default is safer regardless of the workflow. That may be theoretically true --- it cannot do any harm by default. But that is not useful. > I'm mainly interested in using git against a shared repo, > and make it as simple and as safe as possible to use in > such a setup. I suspect that git is more optimized for the > workflow used for the Linux kernel and for developing git, > which heavily rely on sending patches to mailing lists and > pulling fro read-only repos. You forgot a lot more important part. Pushing into publishing repositories. And the discussion is about git-push command. - 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
