On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Plus one further change now: if a newly created branch is in refs/heads/, > > require it to be in refs/heads/devel/ or refs/heads/releases/ (i.e. > > enforce a particular branch naming convention, in particular to prevent > > mistakes where people accidentally push a branch into refs/heads/ because > > their push configuration for user or vendor branches was wrong). > > I'm having a hard time understanding this requirement. > > You want to say that, before branch "<xxx>" gets created, you want > to verify that a branch named either "devel/<xxx>" or "releases/<xxx>" > does exist?
No. What we want to ensure is that people don't accidentally create a branch called refs/heads/foo when they should (by our naming conventions) have created one called refs/heads/devel/foo or refs/users/someone/heads/foo. Our naming conventions mean that all branches in refs/heads/ should be called master, devel/something or releases/something. But it's easy for someone to get a "git push" command wrong so that it would create a badly named branch. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
