On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org> wrote:
> Thus said Baruch Burstein on Sun, 27 Jul 2014 23:31:17 +0300: > > Maybe this should be the default always, even if I have write > > permission, in order to prevent accidental pushes? > > I believe changing the default for autosync in Fossl would go against > the general preference (and I suspect intentional design decision) to > minimize unintentional forks. Making autosync default to pull-only would not impact minimize unintentional forks. When autosync is on, the fossil commit first does a pull from the remembered remote repo. Then the proposed commit is checked against the freshly received updates to detect potential conflicts, including forks. If there are no detectable potential conflicts, the commit is done, then the push (assuming autosunc isn't pull-only AND the local repo is not no-push). As I undertand it, the rational for defaulting autosync to on is to encourage its use. Given that, it makes sense to me that the repo being cloned notify the cloner if she/he doesn't have write privilege, so will not be able to push changes back. Whether that notification results in automatically defaulting autosync (on the receiving side) to pull-only is a corellary question. Personally, I would prefer htat happen AND I get notified. At the very least, being warned would remind me to set it to pull-only. (Outside of work, the only projects I have push privilege for are my own. All other projects I send either a patch or a pull request.)
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
