Re: receive.denyCurrentBranch

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 8, 2009, 20:54 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902082149380.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <76718490902080950r798ca02es4e560da35e499046@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Jay Soffian wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > It's insane, that's what it is.
> >
> > You have _no_ business meddling with a remote working directory, _except_
> > by logging into that machine and working on that working directory
> > _directly_.
> >
> > If you do not agree, you have not thought about the implications, i.e.
> > what problems you buy.
> 
> Just by way of providing an additional perspective, I thought I'd illustrate
> how Mercurial handles this situation:
>
> [... lots of lines which say in a long and winding manner the same as 
>  the following...] 
>
> What I especially like about Mercurial here is that pushing from A is 
> perfectly symetrical to pulling from B.

Just to make it clear: if you have merge conflicts on the remote end, you will get into trouble.

I do not know how Mercurial handles this (I am sure you will send a page-long mail illustrating it), but in my humble opinion, there is _no_ way to handle this except if you have shell access to the remote repository/working directory.

No matter if you suggest leaving merge conflict, a detached HEAD, or "read-tree -u -m HEAD" (i.e. trying a simple merge with the working directory): _all_ of them are unsafe.

Ciao, Dscho