From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: introduce format.defaultTo Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:27:28 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1389028732-27760-3-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <20140106201854.GA28162@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140107205618.GA28102@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140107212432.GD28102@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140107221719.GE28102@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthieu Moy , Ramkumar Ramachandra , Git List To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 07 23:27:40 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W0f7a-0007Y6-Vq for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 23:27:39 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753043AbaAGW1g (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:27:36 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:60733 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752691AbaAGW1e (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:27:34 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5748614C5; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:27:33 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=6D5P75uZhvYoGxAwMVjXaS8Di/o=; b=tcwHIt SQmq3z1+mAGhPHAfVOp5OCE8p4r5N0kpoC0uxPB+EDzwb+0pyax7P1FiTQgi0fde 5Vup31AbjrpPl8N3/YpTxsJPnmUBTGEIXXBW3x2ZSdsnh3HBSWXcwV56khg+yOUH C+jzbYQigUeOiaGmXIDpy9oPtfzQL6Fngv9k0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Eo4IQN2j8vJ2SVET7xnAfbkjini6nwcb EQH6pkZeN6pHClbyl3wtTjhb8YQCe7Rxs2yGfxpqrI7K0wjHlVS5+sRWKBwS87lq 1CYp/SUGDW3I9bs3RKdoHnf6ZghxmfZVQnpnzLjN9IYE1bE500H0ODjzXbu27Lz1 QCkOI8XNP+g= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C121F614BE; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96746614B9; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:27:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20140107221719.GE28102@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:17:19 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E602F28C-77EA-11E3-A6E2-1B26802839F8-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > And even in a centralized workflow, I see "upstream" creating problems. > E.g., you fork a feature branch in the centralized repo; it should not > get pushed straight back to "master"! And that is why we invented > "simple", to prevent such things. Oh, don't get me wrong. I personally wouldn't imagine forking 'topic' from the shared 'master', call the result perfect and push it directly back to the shared 'master'. But the 'upstream' setting was added exactly to support that. In such a case, I would have 'master' that is forked from the shared 'master', 'topic' that is forked from my 'master', and pushing back would be a two-step process, first updating my 'master' in sync with the shared 'master', merging 'topic' into it to make sure the result is sane and then push it back to the shared 'master'. And in that set-up, 'upstream' would work fine as the upstream of my 'master' is the shared 'master', even though 'current' or even 'matching' would work just as well. So in that sense, I do not see 'upstream' as so broken as you seem to be saying. One gap in that line of thought might be that I am sane enough not to attempt "git push" while I am on my 'topic', though.