"Leo Razoumov" <slonik.az@gmail.com> writes:

quoted text
> On 11/8/08, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 03:16:53PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>  > > The FAQ even says "don't do this until you know what you are doing." So
>>  > > the safety valve is configurable, so that those who know what they are
>>  > > doing can switch it off.
>>  >
>>  > "We are breaking your existing working setup but you can add a new
>>  > configuration to unbreak it" should not be done lightly.  I think as the
>>  > end result it is a reasonable thing to aim for for this particular
>>  > feature, but we do need a transition plan patch in between that introduces
>>  > a step that warns but not forbids.  We can ship 1.6.1 with it and then
>>  > switch the default to forbid in 1.6.3, for example.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I was kind of hoping we could assume that anybody relying on this
>>  behavior was somewhat insane, and wouldn't be too upset when it broke.
>
> I do not think that having a work-flow different from yours deserves a
> "somewhat insane" label. But let us consider the consequences of
> banning push into a (current branch) non-bare repo. To propagate
> changes to such a non-bare repo there are two remaining alternatives
> neither of which is fully satisfactory:
>
> (1) Switch target's current branch to something else (prevent a
> conflict) before pushing and then restore it back after the push
>
> (2) Use git-fetch from the target.

(3) set the config in the target repository to allow such a push
    regardless of the git version.

Remember, I am in the third camp in this topic myself.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html