Re: Minor annoyance with git push

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> ... Are there any
> other git commands which use non-HEAD branches that have not been
> explicitly mentioned by the user?  I can think only of query-type
> commands (like show-branch, or describe) that are non-state-changing.

That's an irrelevant comparison.  push and fetch have always
been multi-branch operations by default from day one.  The issue
is not HEAD vs non-HEAD.

You can argue that historically established practices do not
matter at all (at least to new people), and I'd grant that it
may be a valid argument.  But a change that breaks existing
practices needs to be sold much more carefully.  I still do not
understand what the opposition is to keep the current behaviour
as the default and have a shorthand for the single head push
accessible with a short and sweet "git push $there HEAD" (and
default $there to 'origin' when missing).

If you are introducing a new behaviour, there is no way the new
behaviour can start out by replacing the longtime default.  It
should start out as an option, and if it is a commonly useful
option then make it an _easily accessible_ option.  And accept
such an _enhancement_ sooner to help people who want such a
behaviour sooner.  That would not hurt anybody but help
(hopefully) many people, without downside.

Switching the default behaviour is a much longer term thing.  It
definitely has downside people mentioned in this thread.