and...@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan) writes: > On 01/27/2011 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Given that nobody is supposed to push temporary branches to the master >> repo anyway, an intended branch removal should be a pretty darn rare >> event. Now, our committers all seem to be pretty careful people, so >> I don't feel strongly about having extra security on this --- but if >> it's easy to do, it's probably a good idea. >> > > Pushing a local topic branch by mistake seems much more likely to > me. Some protection against that mightn't be a bad idea. Maybe for > example a check on the branch name?
There seems to be a non-zero amount of value to this; I accidentally pushed some private branches into the Slony repo this afternoon, briefly, by accident. It wasn't troublesome to clean it up, so I'm not sure there's *huge* value in pushing a bunch of infrastructure into place to prevent such. If a problem: a) Is readily fixed, b) Is readily noticed, c) Gets you "smacked down" if you leave it unfixed, then I'm not sure it warrants going to extreme measures to prevent such a problem. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'linuxdatabases.info'; http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html If all those psychics know the winning lottery numbers, why are they all still working? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers