On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:07:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Matthieu Moy
> wrote:
> > So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way to
> > force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config,
At 14:55 +0200 24 May 2016, Matthieu Moy wrote:
So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way to
force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config, right?
Probably the sanest way to go. I thought about adding a "git push
On May 24, 2016 3:25 PM Lars Schneider wrote:
> > On 24 May 2016, at 12:16, Randall S. Becker
> wrote:
> >
> > On May 24, 2016 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >>> So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way
> >>> to force the push would be to
> On 24 May 2016, at 12:16, Randall S. Becker wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2016 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>>> So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way
>>> to force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config, right?
>>>
>>>
Junio C Hamano writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Matthieu Moy
> wrote:
>> So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way to
>> force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config, right?
>>
>> Probably
> On 24 May 2016, at 12:07, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Matthieu Moy
> wrote:
>> So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way to
>> force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Randall S. Becker
wrote:
> May be missing the point, but isn't the original intent to provide
> policy-based to control the push
I didn't get the impression that those who are proposing were
interested in a "policy that you have to obey"
On May 24, 2016 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> > So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way
> > to force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config, right?
> >
> > Probably the sanest way to go. I thought about adding a "git push
> >
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Matthieu Moy
wrote:
> So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way to
> force the push would be to remove the blacklist from the config, right?
>
> Probably the sanest way to go. I thought about adding a "git
Lars Schneider writes:
> To answer your question,
> I would reject the push (because the remote is in the denied list) and
> print a warning to point out the conflicting configs to the user.
So, when trying a forbidden push, Git would deny it and the only way to
force
> On 24 May 2016, at 06:12, Francois Beutin
> wrote:
>
On May 20, 2016 10:22 AM, Francois Beutin wrote:
We (Ensimag students) plan to implement the "remote whitelist/blacklist"
feature described in the SoC 2016 ideas, but first I would like to be
> > > On May 20, 2016 10:22 AM, Francois Beutin wrote:
> > > We (Ensimag students) plan to implement the "remote whitelist/blacklist"
> > > feature described in the SoC 2016 ideas, but first I would like to be
> > > sure
> > > we
> > > agree on what exactly this feature would be, and that the
On May 20, 2016 10:22 AM, Francois Beutin wrote:
> We (Ensimag students) plan to implement the "remote whitelist/blacklist"
> feature described in the SoC 2016 ideas, but first I would like to be sure we
> agree on what exactly this feature would be, and that the community sees an
> interest in
13 matches
Mail list logo