Push location hiding

Aaron Bentley aaron at aaronbentley.com
Wed Jun 18 18:43:48 BST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> The rationale for making locations.conf trump branch.conf was because
>> locations.conf is unambiguously under the user's control and can be
>> changed without affecting others.
> Does that mean that when I push, and someone branches my branch, they'll
> see my branch.conf?

The literal answer is yes, but it doesn't matter whether they branch you
branch, or push to your branch, or use it as a submit branch.
branch.conf is a public file, and anyone can see it.

I think what you're asking is whether the push location is copied
verbatim when branching.  This is not the case.  The push location is
not set by default.

So when might it matter that the push location is stored in branch.conf?

Generally if the branch is a shared branch, i.e. multiple developers are
committing to, and pushing from, the same branch.

>> We could set it in BOTH branch.conf and locations.conf, I suppose...
> I'd rather not clutter up my global locations.conf with lots of branch
> specific stuff.

Well, the only purpose of locations.conf is to store stuff about a
branch or subset of branches.  In branch format 5, we used to *always*
store the push location there.

>  I do think that --remember ought to remember.  Perhaps
> there should be a .bzr/~user/locations.conf or some such that only
> affects my branch on this machine.

If it's stored in the branch, it's qualitatively different from
~/.bazaar/locations.conf and should behave more like branch.conf than
locations.conf.  Such a location could not store security-sensitive
values like gpg_signing_command

Besides, do we really want a fourth configuration location?

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the bazaar mailing list