Re: Caution when removing git branches

andrew(at)dunslane(dot)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?