Almost getting there! Couple more questions for clarification: Why is it more secure to force all changes through an intermediate repository? Or maybe I'm confused on how to force all changes through an intermediate repository....Here's the 3 scenarios I'm imagining, please correct me where I'm wrong.
If I am working on my local machine and do... 0) git checkout stage, make some changes 1) git commit -am "Some changes" 2) git push uk intermediate_uk (where uk is a remote with the name "uk") 3) git push uk stage (do the same push for the stage webserver) ...isn't that the same amount of security? Or were you talking about a case where I... 0) git checkout stage, make some changes 1) git commit -am "Some changes" 2) git push uk intermediate_uk (and then somehow using a hook, I don't know how this part works, this then automatically pushes to the UK webserver/stage) How is either of those, using the intermediate repo, more secure than just your initial suggestion of: 0) git checkout stage, make some changes 1) git commit -am "Some changes" 2) git push uk stage (where uk is a remote with the name "uk") Thanks again! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
