Re: pgsql: Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:52, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> 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/