On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:52, Joe Conway <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/28/2011 07:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> Incidentally, the trouble with what Joe did to recover is that he didn't >>> push exactly what he deleted, so the mail record doesn't contain his commit >>> on the 9.1 branch. Ideally he should have reverted his local branch, pushed >>> that, then recommitted his patch and repushed the branch. >> >> Right. The idea behind such a feature would be to protect against >> *mistakes*, not malice.. > > That *was* a mistake on my part, not malice.
Yes, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks anything else! > In any case, I was shocked that I was able to do what I did, so I would > support something that prevents mistakes -- at least big ones such as > creating or dropping branches unintentionally. Part of the problem here > is that the people who know exactly how to recover are the same ones who > are not as likely to make mistakes, and vice-versa. Yeah. Ok, I have the script updated and it was easy to block both creation and removal - it's a simple on/off parameter to the script. We just need consensus on if we want to block just removal, or both removal and creation. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
