Hi, On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:34:28AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Let's be honest here, I have not much respect for users who fail > > to read up enough to understand what they are doing. > > > > But hearing from those users constantly is really unnerving. And > > it would be a one-time cost to old-timers. > > I am not personally opposed to changing this default. I seem to > recall some opposition when this was brought up initially, but I don't > recall any specific reason besides "change is bad". Maybe those who > oppose want to summarize their arguments here. We like to play it safe when changing behavior that does not meet expectations of old-timers. For example, all those early adopters who have forks of the linux-2.6 repository (and probably that repository itself, too) do not have core.bare set. So whenever an old-timer would upgrade to a new Git _with_ my patch, they would need to change their setup. A one-time cost. And far easier to accomodate than the push for non-dashed commands (which people still seem to grumble about, even if they should have realized by now that calling Git through the wrapper exclusively brings so many advantages). > I was hoping that introducing the warning would cause new users to "get > it". But since this warning was put in place, I think we have still > gotten a few questions on the list about this. I don't know if it simply > because they are on older versions, or if the warning is insufficient. > If the former, then perhaps that argues for leaving it a little longer. I would argue it is because users cannot read :-) > > case DENY_REFUSE: > > - if (!is_ref_checked_out(name)) > > + if (is_bare_repository() || !is_ref_checked_out(name)) > > Now what is this change about? I missed the fact that is_ref_checked_out() already checked for that. > > --- a/t/t5701-clone-local.sh > > +++ b/t/t5701-clone-local.sh > > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bundle clone with nonexistent HEAD' ' > > test_expect_success 'clone empty repository' ' > > cd "$D" && > > mkdir empty && > > - (cd empty && git init) && > > + (cd empty && git init && git config receive.denyCurrentBranch false) && > > git clone empty empty-clone && > > test_tick && > > (cd empty-clone > > Perhaps some of these tests would do better to actually just use a bare > repository. Right. I just ran out of time, but did not want to hide the patch from the community. > That would better match the expected workflow for cloning empty, anyway. Well, I did not want to mix up the two of them. Besides, I have this patch in my personal tree for quite some time now, always wanting to clean it up enough to send it...) 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
