On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So both you and Junio have changed your mind since that thread then. > > At least I didn't. Ah, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your intent from that thread then. > 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. Okay, that makes sense. j. -- 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
