From: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:56:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] push: change push to fail if short refname does not exist
Message-ID: <AD10F15D-0F77-42BB-86CA-6404063C784B@zib.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vwst5m2eq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>


On Oct 30, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de> writes:
>
>> Pushing a short refname used to create a new ref on on the
>> remote side if it did not yet exist. If you specified the wrong
>> branch accidentally it was created. A safety valve that pushes
>> only existing branches may help to avoid errors.
>
> On the other hand, if you specified a wrong branch that exists
> on the remote end accidentally, it still was pushed.  Do we want
> to have a new "--i-really-want-to-push" option to make it safer?

Maybe not a bad idea ;)

But not as a command line flag but after printing the results
of a '--dry-run' and than asking the user for confirmation:
"do you want to push this?".


> I do not think so.  Why should a new branch be treated any
> differently?

Because "updating an existing branch" and "creating a new branch"
are two slightly different tasks.

If git provides a way to make this difference explicit, it
would be safer to use.


> Will drop 1/10 and 2/10 for now.

Then they'll be dropped and I'll rely on the the --dry-run flag.

Or someone else needs to step in and support my point.

	Steffen