Hi, On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:47:26PM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote: > > I agree that a detached HEAD is a bad idea. The closest parallel that > > I can come up with for git would be for receive-pack to store incoming > > changes into separate branch hierarchy, NOT for it to detach HEAD. A > > toy-patch I played around with earlier allowed this on the non-bare > > upstream repo: > > > > [receive] > > prefix = refs/remotes/incoming > > > > Then a push to refs/heads/master was automatically stored as > > refs/remotes/incoming/master instead. > > What happens when the next person pushes to the same remote repo, and > their refs/heads/master push is not a fast-forward merge of the > current refs/remotes/incoming/master? > > Do you lose the first user's push at that point? Or do you refuse the > push? This is meant for non-bare repositories, right? Repositories that do have reflogs... Ciao, Dscho P.S.: There _have_ been times when I would have liked an automatic PUSH_HEAD that is always temporary, such as FETCH_HEAD. I _could_ imagine that this is something we could do (opt-in, of course): storing what was already pushed in a PUSH_HEAD, even if the refs could not be updated. -- 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
