Re: Make a non-bare repo bare.

From: Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2009, 03:59 UTC
Message-ID: <2e24e5b90907162059u5e3dfca1x16cd57b0a10a7204@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vd4808iey.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> Mike Ralphson <mike.ralphson@gmail.com> writes:

>> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#HowdoImakeexistingnon-barerepositorybare.3F

Show 8 quoted lines

> Somebody needs to promise to keep that entry up-to-date, or we should
> rewrite it so that we do not expose such an implementation detail.
>
> Even today core.bare is not the only difference between a repository with
> a work tree and a bare one.  We also set core.logallrefupdates these days
> for a repository with a work tree, so the procedure described there is
> already stale.  And this kind of implementation details are bound to
> change.

I wonder why core.logAllRefUpdates is not the default for bare repos. I have taken to making that the _global_ default on any git/gitosis server I install, so all my bare repos have it turned on.

My reason is that I do want to allow "push -f" (it _is_ sometimes needed), but I also want to protect against such push happening in error, and the reflog has always seemed like a good safety net to run to when that happens.

Other than space (due to garbage collection delay until reflog expire) what are the downsides? Could someone enlighten me if I'm doing something stupid here?

Thanks,

Sitaram