Hi, On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > 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.) Funny. I thought bare repositories were meant for public consumption. And for testing, you still can have a (non-public) repository with a work-tree. I'd rather not try to tell users that it is okay to mix the two. 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
