Re: PUSH_HEAD, was Re: disallowing push to currently checked-out branch

> Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> So both you and Junio have changed your mind since that thread then.
>
> At least I didn't.

> I personally was not too worried about protecting either local branches
> nor the current branch (and I do not lose sleep over them now either).
> Either is about forbidding an end user who knows from doing an operation
> we have allowed so far, only because an abuse of the feature by other end
> users who either don't know what they are doing or are careless can result
> in confusing the latter.  I do not particularly like that kind of safety
> valve.
>
> The current round of protecting only local branches is there because it is
> of much lessor impact, with simpler code (and easier revertibility if
> needed), than the full blown "protect these branches" one in which issues
> in its design still has to be ironed out if we go that route (see my other
> message from yesterday to Jeff --- we discuss exactly that in the context
> of detached HEAD and other operations).  The need for "current branch
> protection" this round implements also comes from an observed confusions
> in real world users Dscho and others saw on #git and other places.  The
> more general "protect these branches" is conceptually nicer but the need
> for such safeguard is still under discussion as far as I understood what
> was said in the recent discussions.