RE: [Opinion gathering] Git remote whitelist/blacklist

From: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Date: May 24, 2016, 16:16 UTC
Message-ID: <002b01d1b5d7$aefd0a70$0cf71f50$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPc5daURo8SkbeGf0MEsp0sLzdzFfUOxptgusFr58UG9SKmDAA@mail.gmail.com>

On May 24, 2016 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way
> > to force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config, right?
> >
> > Probably the sanest way to go. I thought about adding a "git push
> > --force-even-if-in-blacklist" or so, but I don't think the feature
> > deserves one specific option (hence add some noise in `git push -h`).
> 
> Yeah, I agree --even-if-in-blacklist is a road to madness, but I wonder how
> this is different from setting pushURL to /dev/null or something illegal and
> replace that phony configuration value when you really need to push?

May be missing the point, but isn't the original intent to provide policy-based to control the push destinations? A sufficiently knowledgeable person, being a couple of weeks into git, would easily see that the config points to a black-listed destination and easily bypass it with a config update, rendering all this pointless? This seems to me to be a lot of effort to go to for limited value - unless immutable attributes are going to be obtained from the upstream repository - which also seems to run counter to the whole point.

Confusededly, Randall