Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin writes: > Okay, here is my explanation: at the time I wanted to disprove that > updateInstead could make sense, I wanted to offer a milder version of > updating the current branch that left the working directory alone: > detachInstead. > > Now, I never used it myself, but I us

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-12 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Junio, On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > >> I do not think of a good justification of detachInstead offhand, but > >> you must have thought things through a lot more than I did, so you > >> can come up with a work flow description that is more usabl

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-10 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin writes: >> I do not think of a good justification of detachInstead offhand, but >> you must have thought things through a lot more than I did, so you >> can come up with a work flow description that is more usable by mere >> mortals to justify that mode. > > The main justifica

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-10 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Peff, On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Under certain circumstances, it makes a *lot* of sense to allow pushing > > into the current branch. For example, when two machines with different > > Operating Systems are

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-10 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Junio, On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Under certain circumstances, it makes a *lot* of sense to allow pushing > > into the current branch. For example, when two machines with different > > Operating Systems are required for testing, it makes muc

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-08 Thread brian m. carlson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:18:55AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Under certain circumstances, it makes a *lot* of sense to allow pushing > > into the current branch. For example, when two machines with different > > Operating S

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-08 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:58:17PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Under certain circumstances, it makes a *lot* of sense to allow pushing > into the current branch. For example, when two machines with different > Operating Systems are required for testing, it makes much more sense to > synchr

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-07 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Junio, On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] I will address your concerns after the weekend. Ciao, Johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/major

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin writes: > Under certain circumstances, it makes a *lot* of sense to allow pushing > into the current branch. For example, when two machines with different > Operating Systems are required for testing, it makes much more sense to > synchronize between working directories than h

[PATCH 1/2] Add a few more values for receive.denyCurrentBranch

2014-11-07 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Under certain circumstances, it makes a *lot* of sense to allow pushing into the current branch. For example, when two machines with different Operating Systems are required for testing, it makes much more sense to synchronize between working directories than having to go via a third server. Under