Re: push.default???

[Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>]

Finn Arne Gangstad wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> Finn Arne Gangstad wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Before going on, can you explain your use case for --push=tracking 
>>>> (in a  case where --push=current wouldn't do the same)?
>>> The idea with "tracking" is to push the current branch to wherever it
>>> would pull from, making push & pull "equivalent" in some sense.
>>>
>>> This is different from "current" if you have/choose to name the local
>>> branch something else than the remote branch. This happens a lot when
>>> using multiple remotes.
>>>
>>> E.g. some remotes have only a single active branch called "master",
>>> and you have to name it something else locally, or several people have
>>> local branches called "beta", and you have to name it something like
>>> "fred-beta" locally if you are working on fred's beta.
>>>
>> Umm. Why not name it after the feature you're working on instead of the
>> branch you started from? That way, you get fred/beta (assuming you've
>> added Fred's repo as a remote named "fred" ofcourse) and all your
>> branches have names that never (in theory) clash with any of your
>> upstreams.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but: The point is that you
> can not name it the same as on the remote. So the names are different,
> and --current will not work.
> 

I think our workflows differ quite drastically, as I very rarely see
the need to push more than one branch. When I do, it's for repositories
where I'm the ultimate upstream, so I only have one remote that I
actually *can* push to at all.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.