From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have git-cvsserver call hooks/update before really altering the ref Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:07:57 -0800 Message-ID: <7vtzxqvsle.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <200702131512.45412.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7v7iumymvq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 13 19:08:09 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HH24W-00015q-8j for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:08:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751423AbXBMSH7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:07:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751424AbXBMSH7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:07:59 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:56137 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423AbXBMSH7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:07:59 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070213180759.KXOA22948.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:07:59 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id P67x1W0221kojtg0000000; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:07:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:54:39 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> As a principle, I am in favor of this. Perhaps post 1.5.0 after >> hearing what real cvsserver users have to say on the list. > > Andy looks to me like a real cvsserver user though. I know. If he were the only real cvsserver user, then the patch is fine as there is no risk breaking somebody else's setup.