Re: [PATCH] Switch receive.denyCurrentBranch to "refuse"

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 1, 2009, 22:59 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902012349360.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090131095622.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>

Hi,

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Nanako Shiraishi wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Quoting Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
> 
> > You cannot just cater for one workflow and fsck the other workflows 
> > over.
> >
> > You'll have to devise a method that helps the workflow you are 
> > interested in, but leaves the others alone.
> 
> I think you'd want to repeat that to yourself when you propose to switch 
> the default for denyCurrentcurrentBranch config to "true" too hastily 
> the next time?

Nanako, what exactly do you think I did before writing these lines:

    Granted, we wanted to have a longer grace period for old-timers, but
    let's face it:
    [... a discussion on the pros and cons ...]

? Do you think I did that just on a whim, or do you rather assume that I thought long and hard about it?

> I don't think your patch matches the tradition of how defaults are 
> changed in git project. You don't introduce a large change just after 
> the maintainer hints about going into a freeze for 1.X.Y release when Y 
> isn't zero.

Indeed. That is why I wrote "Granted, we wanted to have a longer grace period"!

> I assume that everybody, including the maintainer who is too heavyweight

I saw Junio.  He is in no way heavyweight.  He is actually rather skinny.

Show 5 quoted lines

> and has too much inertia to accept too sudden a change of the course,
> wants to eventually make the default to deny pushing to the current
> branch. But I think such a change should come at 1.7.0 release at the
> earliest, and a constructive thing to do is to put in a patch to 1.6.2
> that helps the users with the eventual transition.

So what do you want to achieve? Annoy me? Annoy Git newbies? Annoy Git oldtimers?

Eventually, it will boil down to

- who
- when

to annoy.

And I have a strong suspicion that it does not help the reputation of Git at all, if we annoy

- new Git users
- for a long time

Rather, I'd like to annoy only

- a few oldtimers who should know better by now
- just once, when they upgrade to a new minor release and see that they 
  forgot to mark their repository as "bare".

If you would think about it as long and hard as I did, you would see that we have to annoy

- a few oldtimers
- at some stage

anyway, but in the meantime, we could avoid to annoy

- a lot of new Git users
- for a long time

at the cost of annoying

- a few oldtimers
- now, instead of later

which cost will come to

- us
- anyway

Frankly, I am surprised that people do not agree with me on this point.

> What do people think?

Seriously, when it comes to the Git users I interact with, they think "what the bl**dy fsck did the Git people smoke when they made it _so_ hard on new Git users, I am certainly not the only person bitten by this."

I know, because they let me in on their thoughts, but are too shy to mention them here on the Git list.

And as everybody knows, I am a nice guy, and I listen.

Ciao, Dscho