Re: [PATCH 0/2] bookmarks

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Apr 26, 2007, 07:50 UTC
Message-ID: <7v647jtvzb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260816480.27356@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>

Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> writes:

> That way you are not reliant on the user's tools following your rules.

You misunderstood -- what implements the rules is on the repository side, not the end users' side.

> I don't think it unreasonable to say that anything that is in a public
> repository is public, and that the way to keep things private is to
> not push them into a public repository. Or is it?

I wouldn't have bothered to jump into the thread if this were about public repositories. You would not even need a separate namespace refs/bm -- you do not have to push that out.

But that was not what Andy was talking about.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I understand that some people may wish to make their working
> repositories public, but then there isn't any way we can say for sure
> that things will remain private.  Even if ls-remote was updated, an
> older version would simply ignore the new "this is private"
> configuration.

You misunderstood. I am not talking about updating ls-remote. The update to upload-pack/update-server-info is done on the side of Andy's repository, not on the client side.

> or simply expand the current push configuration to accept that syntax,
> so that you can finely control which refs get pushed to the public
> repo?

You do not have to update anything on push side, as push just pushes what you tell it to, unless you say 'push --all', in which case you obviously mean all is all is all, so there is no need for exclude.