On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Those who want to bypass your policy can use "vi .git/packed-refs"
> and/or "rm .git/refs/heads/foo"; you would not propose to patch "rm"
> and "vi" to pay attention to git configuration, because they are not
> about "git" at all, and there
Brian Vandenberg writes:
> Would you be less doubtful about adding a lower-level hook for
> update-ref? Or in lieu of that, a config option that can affect the
> behavior of its "-m" and "-d" options?
Not really.
Those who want to bypass your policy can use "vi .git/packed-refs"
and/or "rm .gi
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I am ultra-doubtful at this point ;-)
>
> For one thing, update-ref is not a tool that is exclusive to
> receiving object transfer aka receive-pack, so it makes no sense for
> it to pay attention to post-update.
I was a little dubious about
Brian Vandenberg writes:
> From: Junio C Hamano
> Date: 2006-10-08 15:00:32
> Petr Baudis writes:
>
>>> Someone raised a concern that the update and post-update hooks are not
>>> invoked at fetch time in the similar way as they are invoked at push
>>> time, and the idea sort of makes sense. But
From: Junio C Hamano
Date: 2006-10-08 15:00:32
Petr Baudis writes:
>> Someone raised a concern that the update and post-update hooks are not
>> invoked at fetch time in the similar way as they are invoked at push
>> time, and the idea sort of makes sense. But this patch goes further - it
>> make
5 matches
Mail list logo
