"Leo Razoumov" [off-list ref] writes:
On 11/8/08, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 03:16:53PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > The FAQ even says "don't do this until you know what you are doing." So
> > the safety valve is configurable, so that those who know what they are
> > doing can switch it off.
>
> "We are breaking your existing working setup but you can add a new
> configuration to unbreak it" should not be done lightly. I think as the
> end result it is a reasonable thing to aim for for this particular
> feature, but we do need a transition plan patch in between that introduces
> a step that warns but not forbids. We can ship 1.6.1 with it and then
> switch the default to forbid in 1.6.3, for example.
Yeah, I was kind of hoping we could assume that anybody relying on this
behavior was somewhat insane, and wouldn't be too upset when it broke.
I do not think that having a work-flow different from yours deserves a
"somewhat insane" label. But let us consider the consequences of
banning push into a (current branch) non-bare repo. To propagate
changes to such a non-bare repo there are two remaining alternatives
neither of which is fully satisfactory:
(1) Switch target's current branch to something else (prevent a
conflict) before pushing and then restore it back after the push
(2) Use git-fetch from the target.
(3) set the config in the target repository to allow such a push
regardless of the git version.
Remember, I am in the third camp in this topic myself.
On 12/1/08, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
"Leo Razoumov" [off-list ref] writes:
> On 11/8/08, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 03:16:53PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> > > The FAQ even says "don't do this until you know what you are doing." So
>> > > the safety valve is configurable, so that those who know what they are
>> > > doing can switch it off.
>> >
>> > "We are breaking your existing working setup but you can add a new
>> > configuration to unbreak it" should not be done lightly. I think as the
>> > end result it is a reasonable thing to aim for for this particular
>> > feature, but we do need a transition plan patch in between that introduces
>> > a step that warns but not forbids. We can ship 1.6.1 with it and then
>> > switch the default to forbid in 1.6.3, for example.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I was kind of hoping we could assume that anybody relying on this
>> behavior was somewhat insane, and wouldn't be too upset when it broke.
>
> I do not think that having a work-flow different from yours deserves a
> "somewhat insane" label. But let us consider the consequences of
> banning push into a (current branch) non-bare repo. To propagate
> changes to such a non-bare repo there are two remaining alternatives
> neither of which is fully satisfactory:
>
> (1) Switch target's current branch to something else (prevent a
> conflict) before pushing and then restore it back after the push
>
> (2) Use git-fetch from the target.
(3) set the config in the target repository to allow such a push
regardless of the git version.
Remember, I am in the third camp in this topic myself.
Junio,
thanks for supporting the "third way". I am not sure whether I
interpret it correctly but in the same thread several message earlier
you wrote "We can ship 1.6.1 with it and then switch the default to
forbid in 1.6.3, for example". With the default set to "deny" it would
be useful if the git-push error message will indicate what config
variable to set in order to reverse the denial.
--Leo--