Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push?

[Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org>]

On 20/03/12 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org> writes:
> 
>> I assume the reason for removing the warning altogether is that some day
>> the signal:noise ratio will just get too bad.
> 
> The reasoning is a lot simpler than that.
> 
> If the end game is not remove the warning, then we would be switching to a
> new default that is "give loud warning until the user configures her own
> default, but push upstream/current anyway" mode.  We do not want such a
> stupid mode as the default---we want the default to be either upstream or
> current at the end, when nobody remembers what the ancient default was.
> 
> The "warn loud but do it anyway" is a very good interim step during the
> migration, but is never a good default.  If we are going to stop there,
> "give loud warning until the user chooses and configures the default, and
> push nothing" mode would be a LOT safer and saner default, as it would
> really force people to configure the default.  Obviously we do not want to
> go there, so...
> 

It sounds like we're disagreeing, but I can't tell what about.  I agree
that "warn loud but do it anyway" is a bad default in the long term.  I
propose implementing the behaviour you want by adding a push.default
setting to the .git/config file for all new repositories, so that users
with a longer-than-expected short term still get the warning.  That
should warn 99% of the people who need it without bothering anyone that
doesn't.  What am I missing?

	- Andrew