On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:19:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jay Soffian [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Git has survived w/o needing to lock branches till now.
Careful. Git has survived without your patch series till now, as people
learned to be careful when they use separate workdirs and avoid certain
things, to the point that they are not necessarily aware that they are
avoiding them (one good practice is to keep the HEADs of non-primary
workdirs detached).
Does that mean what your patch aims to do is unnecessary? I think not.
It seems to me that things like receive.denyCurrentBranch and
receive.denyDeleteCurrent are just special hand-rolled versions of the
same concept.
Could they be implemented using this kind of branch locking? Moreover, I
think they would need to be to cope with new-workdir, as the definition
of "current" stops being "referenced by HEAD", but becomes much larger.
-Peff