From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:07:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <516BA732.4080405@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vppxw335o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 4/15/2013 5:04, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ... In my proposal, the
>> precedence order branch.<name>.pushremote, remote.pushdefault,
>> branch.<name>.remote, remote.default, origin, remains the same: we
>> just want to change which branch that <name> refers to.
>
> That "changing the meaning of <name>" in the middle, and doing so
> will be confusing to the users, is exactly the issue, isn't it?
>
>> In my
>> opinion, it is a much more subtle change than the entirely new
>> precedence order that you're inventing.
>
> Adding "--" has never been my itch. I just brought it up out of thin
> air as a possible alternative that is less confusing.
User says:
git push -- master docs release
Then git pushes the three branches to three different upstreams. You find
that confusing. Do I understanding correctly so far?
If I were a push.default=(simple|upstream) type, then I would be totally
aware that there are three different upstreams involved because I had had
to configure them manually and explicitly (correct?), and I would be
completely surprised if the push would *not* go to three different upstreams.
Just my 2 cents. (But I'm a traditional "matching" type, so take this with
a grain of salt. Or I may be missing the point of this thread, as I
haven't followed closely.)
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-15 7:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-12 15:33 [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-12 22:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-13 4:49 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-14 4:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-14 8:33 ` Jakub Narębski
2013-04-14 13:29 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-15 3:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-15 7:07 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2013-04-15 7:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-15 8:35 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 9:17 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-15 9:46 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 9:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-15 9:44 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-15 9:59 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 16:39 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-04-15 17:13 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 17:18 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-04-15 9:35 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-16 2:05 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-04-16 2:13 ` Jonathan Nieder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=516BA732.4080405@viscovery.net \
--to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.