Re: [PATCH 0/2] bookmarks

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: Apr 26, 2007, 09:04 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260905100.27947@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7v647jtvzb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 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.

If your public repo is available via http or rsync, then you can't consider anything private ...

If it's available via git:// only, then that's different.

Show 8 quoted lines

>
>> 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.

If the repository is not public, where's the problem? _Everthing_ is private then...

(by public I simply mean "availabe for others to fetch from")

Show 12 quoted lines

>
> But that was not what Andy was talking about.
>
>> 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.

Yeah, that's what I get for trying to think before lunch time ... :$

Show 9 quoted lines

>
>> 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.

Having thought about after I sent my email, I agree that the current push syntax is already enough.

-- 
Julian

  ---
BOFH Excuse #56:

Electricians made popcorn in the power supply