From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse"
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:24:57 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901301423120.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vwscdbkpd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> @@ -239,9 +239,12 @@ static const char *update(struct command *cmd)
> " that are now in HEAD.");
> break;
> case DENY_REFUSE:
> - if (!is_ref_checked_out(name))
> + if (is_bare_repository() || !is_ref_checked_out(name))
> break;
> - error("refusing to update checked out branch: %s", name);
> + error("refusing to update checked out branch: %s\n"
> + "if you know what you are doing, you can allow it by "
> + "setting\n\n"
> + "\tgit config receive.denyCurrentBranch true\n", name);
> return "branch is currently checked out";
> }
>
> As the message I am currently getting from such a push is:
>
> $ git push ../victim-010 next:master
> Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
> warning: updating the currently checked out branch; this may cause confusion,
> as the index and working tree do not reflect changes that are now in HEAD.
> To ../victim-010
> a34a9db..d79e69c next -> master
>
> which is much better than what you did. It at least tries to explain why
> it is warning, even though I think it has a huge room for improvement.
I do not really care about the output. You are probably right, it should
be different from what I proposed.
> You alluded that we wanted to make grace period much longer, but you
> want to cut it short. I think it is a huge mistake. The warning has
> only been there for the last two months, and only can be seen from
> v1.6.1-rc1 or newer software. These new people even haven't a chance to
> learn from the existing warning.
In reality, people will not learn from the warning. Those that are
old-timers (and who should be warned in the first place, instead of
refuses) will just happily ignore that there was a warning: the command
they used so often and the worked all the time just happened to work --
again -- no matter what the output is.
But we are really hurting new users, and let's face it, the balance of
time cost currently is in a huge favor of the old-timers there.
Not only are there many more newbies these days than old timers.
No, the _time_ spent by an old-timer to read an appropriate message and
fix the setup would be _substantially_ shorter than the _hours_ of
frustration a newbie spends on the issue.
And we claim to make decentralized repositories easy.
> I think what would work much better would be a patch that keeps the
> warn-but-allow as the default, but clarifies the warning message.
As I said, I am _convinced_ that a warning will do nothing at all. Just
like the warning about the dashed commands, nobody who should be concerned
will notice it.
> (1) what symptoms, that are easily observable by the most novice users,
> are caused by "index and work tree going out of sync" the warning
> talks about, and why that would not be what they want;
>
> (2) if the user did not mean to do it (and the user can tell by observing
> the symptom described in the previous point), describe what needs to
> be done to recover from the fallout this push has caused (we do not
> need a recipe; pointing at a URL or manpage is fine), and what switch
> to flip to prevent herself from doing it again in the future;
>
> (3) if the user did mean it, and finds the above two big warning
> annoying, what switch to flip to squelch the warning for future
> pushes.
>
> The goal of the warning should be to *force* people *choose*, either to
> silently-allow (aka DENY_IGNORE) or refuse (DENY_REFUSE), and give enough
> information for them to make an informed decision. We can afford to be
> annoyingly long, loud and verbose there.
>
> On the other hand, you cannot make the message for DENY_REFUSE annoyingly
> long, as people may have already chosen to say "please refuse my push into
> a live branch".
>
> If you are making "refuse" the default, an annoyingly long message is even
> worse. "Yeah, thanks for stopping me, but you do not have to remind me
> every time that I made a mistake in large red letters. I perfectly well
> know what I am doing, I perfectly well know that I did not want to push
> into that branch, I just made a mistake---you do not have to be so loud".
>
> I suspect that you cannot even be long enough to be informative, not to
> annoy people.
Let's reap all the opinions about this issue, and then I'll do the wrap-up
patch.
But this is a serious issue that seriously needs to be coped with. We are
getting another generation of "Git is difficult" users that way.
Ciao,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-30 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1233275583u.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
2009-01-30 0:34 ` [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse" Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-30 1:28 ` Jay Soffian
2009-01-30 1:32 ` Asheesh Laroia
2010-04-13 16:42 ` [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse" Dave Abrahams
2010-04-13 17:57 ` [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse" Junio C Hamano
[not found] ` <7v4ozhd1wp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
2009-01-30 2:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-30 13:24 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2009-01-30 16:33 ` Jeff King
2009-01-30 16:55 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-30 2:30 ` Miklos Vajna
2009-01-30 13:28 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-11 0:11 ` Miklos Vajna
2009-02-11 1:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-30 2:55 ` Jeff King
2009-01-30 14:11 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-30 7:17 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-01-30 7:34 ` Jeff King
2009-01-30 13:23 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-30 14:35 ` Jeff King
2009-01-30 16:17 ` Jay Soffian
2009-01-30 16:28 ` Jeff King
2009-01-30 17:01 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-30 18:50 ` Jay Soffian
2009-01-30 19:03 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-31 0:56 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-02-01 1:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-01 1:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-02 12:41 ` Jeff King
2009-02-03 4:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-03 17:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-06 14:06 ` Jeff King
2009-02-07 7:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-03 8:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-03 8:07 ` Jeff King
2009-02-03 9:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-01 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-01 3:37 ` Sam Vilain
2009-02-01 21:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-02 7:00 ` Sam Vilain
2009-02-02 8:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-02 10:50 ` Sam Vilain
2009-02-01 22:59 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-01 23:56 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.1.00.0901301423120.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).