On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > ... > > >> As I described in my other message, I suspect that treating the > > >> current branch specially like this is a wrong approach. The > > >> configuration might be a good idea, but shouldn't it prevent any > > >> local branch from getting updated? Push into non-bare repository is > > >> simply a fetch run in reverse direction. > > > > > > That would break this work flow: > > > > > > # machine A > > > $ git push B master:refs/heads/tmp > > > > > > # machine B > > > $ git merge tmp > > > $ git branch -d tmp > > > > I am afraid that the above is irrelevant. > > > > (1) You can push the temporary into anywhere outside refs/heads/ if that > > becomes the problem; > > Okay, didn't think about that one. > > > (2) Your change to forbid current branch already "breaks" another workflow > > (which I happen to use everyday) anyway: > > > > # machine A (primary development repository) > > $ git push k.org ;# master->master, next->next, ... > > > > # machine B (build test repository) > > $ git reset --hard > > $ for b in master maint next pu > > do git checkout $b && make clean test || break > > done > > It would not, because it is not activated by default. Only newly > initialised repositories will have that config variable set. > > > > Besides, there is a _vital_ difference between the current branch,... > > > > [...] > > > > Now think. What if one of these operations you do in the repository to > > advance the tip was to merge from one of _your_ local branches? Yes, > > you end up merging something you did not expect to merge if you allowed > > a push from sideways to affect that local branch, only because the > > branch happened to be un-checked-out and you implemented this protection > > to forbid only to current branch. Allowing a push from sideways to any > > local branch destabilizes your work environment, not just the current > > one. > > Okay, I am starting to see the light. > > How about > > receive.localBranches = (refuse | allow) > > with a default "allow"? Then we could add more rope later with the > "update" option, which would run "git read-tree -u -m HEAD" if the current > branch is updated, and simply allow all other branches being updated. The use cases I've seen for pushing into a non-bare repository seem to be cases in which "refs/heads/" isn't really local; it's only updated by push from elsewhere, and it's named "refs/heads/" because that's where public branches are served from. This suggests we could have: core.noLocalBranches: true with the implications: - it's definitely okay to push to refs/heads/ - HEAD is always detached. That seems to me to accurately describe a repository used to hold branches for public consumption and where there's a work tree for testing and building, rather than development. (I.e., work tree operations only read the repository.) -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- 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
