From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:39:24 GMT Subject: Re: keeping remote repo checked out? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > but if you use a special git branch for the checked-out state, then you > > have to realize that nobody can push directly to it. > > The idea is to have something which is private, to match the working tree, > which is obviously private (because it doesn't even exist from the point > of view of the database). Sure. It's private because it has its own name, and you can make _sure_ that nobody tries to push to it by having a trigger that refuses to update that branch. Now, if you want to make it also be _invisible_ (so that when others don't clone, they don't see what the checked-out state was when they cloned), you'd have to make some new rules to git. We could have rules like "branch names that start with '.' aren't listed", which would effectively do exactly that.. Linus