Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So both you and Junio have changed your mind since that thread then. At least I didn't. I personally was not too worried about protecting either local branches nor the current branch (and I do not lose sleep over them now either). Either is about forbidding an end user who knows from doing an operation we have allowed so far, only because an abuse of the feature by other end users who either don't know what they are doing or are careless can result in confusing the latter. I do not particularly like that kind of safety valve. The current round of protecting only local branches is there because it is of much lessor impact, with simpler code (and easier revertibility if needed), than the full blown "protect these branches" one in which issues in its design still has to be ironed out if we go that route (see my other message from yesterday to Jeff --- we discuss exactly that in the context of detached HEAD and other operations). The need for "current branch protection" this round implements also comes from an observed confusions in real world users Dscho and others saw on #git and other places. The more general "protect these branches" is conceptually nicer but the need for such safeguard is still under discussion as far as I understood what was said in the recent discussions. -- 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
