Re: [wwwdocs] Git transition - how to access private user and vendor branches

[Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>]

Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:31:13PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>> Why would people want to name their local branches "me/thing" instead
>>> of just "thing", btw?
>>
>> it’s a way of making things distinct and allows the push rule to be  
>> present for them
>> but absent for more dangerous pushes.
>
> That's a weird setting imo.  Potentially destroying your own work *is*
> dangerous :-)
>
> Pretty much anything you mess up locally in Git can be easily restored.
> Restoring remote branches can be much harder.  To start with, this
> requires knowing *what* to restore, which can require direct access to
> the remote repository, or its backups.  So doing an unexpected non-ff
> push is probably not a good idea.
>
> You can also add a "+" manually when you want to overwrite the remote
> branch, or configure your setup to always do that for certain branches.

(FAOD) I wasn’t suggesting to add the ‘+’ (I never set anything to force  
push)
just commenting that putting one’s own work in a separate namespace isn’t
a bad plan.

> It all depends on personal preference and work habits, of course.  But
> I think it isn't the best idea to recommend people take up dangerous
> habits :-)
>
>> So if one renames origin to something else
>> e.g. fsf or upstream, and there are no automatic push rules, it’s one  
>> more small
>> protection against an accidental push?
>
> If you haven't configured push rules for your remote, you get what you
> have in "push.default" for that remote.  Since Git 2.0 the default has
> been "push.default = simple", and no non-ff pushes are allowed by default
> anyway?
>
> I guess it makes some sense to group together locally the branches you
> have in users/ on our shared server.  But then "me/" is not a great
> name :-)

no, I usually duplicate the ‘userid’.

Iain