Re: PUSH_HEAD, was Re: disallowing push to currently checked-out branch

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Jay Soffian [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.