From: Lars Schneider Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:31:22 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: deny policy to prevent pushes to unwanted remotes. Message-ID: <6974F4AA-F0A7-45DA-99AA-2911C80773AD@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1589200049.381440.1465221656049.JavaMail.zimbra@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> On 06 Jun 2016, at 16:00, Antoine Queru wrote: > Hello Lars, thanks for your reply. >> >> >>> On 30 May 2016, at 06:45, Antoine Queru >>> wrote: >>> >>> Currently, a user wanting to prevent accidental pushes to the wrong remote >>> has to create a pre-push hook. >>> The feature offers a configuration to allow users to prevent accidental >>> pushes >>> to the wrong remote. The user may define a list of whitelisted remotes, a >>> list >>> of blacklisted remotes and a default policy ("allow" or "deny"). A push >>> is denied if the remote is explicitely blacklisted or if it isn't >>> whitelisted and the default policy is "deny". >>> >>> This feature is intended as a safety net more than a real security, the >>> user >>> will always be able to modify the config if he wants to. It is here for him >>> to >>> consciously restrict his push possibilities. For example, it may be useful >>> for an unexperimented user fearing to push to the wrong remote, or for >>> companies wanting to avoid unintentionnal leaking of private code on public >>> repositories. >> >> Thanks for working on this feature. Unfortunately I won't be able to test and >> review it before June 14. I am traveling without laptop and only very >> sporadic internet access :) >> >> One thing that I noticed already: I think a custom warning/error message for >> rejected pushes would be important because, as you wrote above, this feature >> does not provide real security. That means if a push is rejected for someone >> in an organization then the user needs to understand what is going on. E.g. >> in my organization I would point the user to the open source contribution >> guidelines etc. >> >> Thanks, >> Lars > > I might not understand what you've said, but I think this feature is already > implemented in our version, with remote.pushDenyMessage. Is this what you're > talking about ? You are right. I was skimming the diff on a very small screen and missed that for some reason. Sorry!