Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Matthieu Moy > <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote: >> Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes: >> >>> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: >>> >>>> Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes: >>> >>> Ideally, it would be possible to ask for a non-update without a fatal >>> error on old Git versions, but this is not possible (hence, my fix is >>> the "portable" one, that works on Git 1.8.4). >>> >>> But that's probably the best we can do now. >> >> ... and a patch implementing that would look like: > > This is exactly what I meant by only update when a feature has been > flagged.
OK, I didn't understand you meant patching Git itself for that. So it makes sense to turn my toy patch into a real patch I guess. Any comment on the capability name? I used dont-update-private, which is a bit long. The actual precise name would be dont-update-private-for-push, but that's really long. Any better idea? Just to be sure: you originally wrote "update the remote namespace only when a certain feature has been flagged". My patch differs in two ways: it's opt-out, not opt-in, and it's about updating the _private_ namespace, not the remote. Any comment on what's the best behavior? -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
