From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:55:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <7v4ozhd1wp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwscdbkpd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090130163317.GB6963@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 30 17:57:13 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LSwfx-0006r2-Ms for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:57:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751368AbZA3QzQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:55:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751346AbZA3QzP (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:55:15 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:60124 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750824AbZA3QzN (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:55:13 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0000 Received: from pacific.mpi-cbg.de (EHLO pacific.mpi-cbg.de) [141.5.10.38] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 30 Jan 2009 17:55:11 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19oYe1Z2kRoXV1fNVIJWpLEojg5F+V5xcxCg7cWno YKc4mql4lyNX+M X-X-Sender: schindelin@pacific.mpi-cbg.de In-Reply-To: <20090130163317.GB6963@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.58 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 02:24:57PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Let's reap all the opinions about this issue, and then I'll do the > > wrap-up patch. > > I thought what Junio said was very reasonable (improve the message and > give it some more time to work). > > But I honestly do not care that much either way. I probably would have > made the original patch default to "deny" if not for discussion > recommending to be conservative. On the other hand, I don't think we > have really given the "warning" approach enough time to see whether it > is working (and I don't necessarily disagree with your gut feeling that > it won't work; I am undecided, which leads me to want more data). It is not working: http://groups.google.com/group/msysgit/msg/55b1aa03fbbbefba?dmode=source (I am simply assuming that the mentioned 1.6.1-preview has the warning, since denyCurrentBranch is in v1.6.1-rc1~59^2, and I am too short on time to check it in detail (which would mean finding a Windows machine and running a test)). Ciao, Dscho