Hi, On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, david@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > * git-push to update the checked out branch will be refused by default > > > > > > > > Make "git push" into a repository to update the branch that is checked > > > > out fail by default. > > > > > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/107758/focus=108007 > > > > > > If I understand this one, it will cause grief for quite a few people. > > > > > > I have a public repository that I push to and then have a trigger that > > > checks > > > out the current version, compiles it, publishes the compiled version, > > > sends an > > > announcement, etc > > > > So you have to set a config variable. Big deal. > > > > Compared to that, the thousands of new Git users will no longer be bitten > > by the "do not push to a non-bare repository" issue without a useful error > > message. > > > > Please, please, publicize that if there is somebody who is doing the same > > as you (which I deem a dangerous workflow; I certainly do not use it > > myself) that they will have to adjust their receive.denyCurrentBranch > > variable. > > since this repository isn't use for anything other than publishing for public > access, what's so dangerous about it? Hey, you do what you want... I just keep in mind that it _is_ a working directory that can go dirty, for whatever reasons. Which is why _I_ do things like your workflow locally, even if that means that I log onto another machine (which is then "local"). But again, it is your choice. And certainly, it will be possible in the future, too, just more deprecated than it is already. 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
