> > > 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.
Could you rely on the update-hook script for that? -- Joel
