From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:10:31 +1300 Message-ID: <1225822231.6722.3.camel@maia.lan> References: <20081030002239.D453B21D14E@mail.utsl.gen.nz> <20081031003154.GA5745@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v3ai9226q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1225691960.20883.41.camel@maia.lan> <20081104091800.GB24100@dpotapov.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Sam Vilain , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , Scott Chacon , Tom Preston-Werner , "J.H." , Christian Couder , Kai Blin To: Dmitry Potapov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 04 19:12:10 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KxQNt-0008P7-4Z for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:12:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753276AbYKDSKz (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:10:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752938AbYKDSKz (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:10:55 -0500 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:53282 "EHLO mail.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752771AbYKDSKy (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:10:54 -0500 Received: by mail.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 1E6F021C3BC; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:10:49 +1300 (NZDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail.musashi.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (longdrop.musashi.utsl.gen.nz [192.168.253.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD0D921C39C; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:10:35 +1300 (NZDT) In-Reply-To: <20081104091800.GB24100@dpotapov.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:18 +0300, Dmitry Potapov wrote: > > I can see that some people want this behaviour by default; but to me > > "push the current branch back to where it came from" seems like far more > > a rational default for at least 90% of users. > > I think it depends on one's workflow. If you use a centralized workflow > as with CVS then yes, 90% cases you want to push the current branch. On > the other hand, if people push their changes to the server only for > review, it means that accidentally pushing more than one intended is not > a big deal. Perhaps not, but it was still unintended. I really can't understand the opposition to making this command make many people less angry at it. > The only one who does publishing to the official repository > is the maintainer, and the maintainer is most likely to run some tests > after merging all changes, which takes some time. So, it is rarely push > the current branch, it is usually the branch that has been tested, so > the name of the branch should be specified explicitly anyway. Why is that relevant? That person can still use the explicit version of the command. Sam.