Not pushing all branches?

Not pushing all branches?

[Peter Krefting]

Hi!

Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is there a 
way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular remote repository) 
just push the current branch? Or failing that, not allow me to run "git 
push" without specifying a branch?

The git-config manual page leads me to believe that I should recofigure 
"remote.<name>.push", but it points me to the "refspec" spec on git-push, 
which is a tad cryptic.

-- 
\\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Imran M Yousuf]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is there a
> way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular remote repository)
> just push the current branch? Or failing that, not allow me to run "git
> push" without specifying a branch?

Just try -
git push remote branch :)

>
> The git-config manual page leads me to believe that I should recofigure
> "remote.<name>.push", but it points me to the "refspec" spec on git-push,
> which is a tad cryptic.
>
> --
> \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>



-- 
Imran M Yousuf
Entrepreneur & Software Engineer
Smart IT Engineering
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Email: imran@smartitengineering.com
Blog: http://imyousuf-tech.blogs.smartitengineering.com/
Mobile: +880-1711402557

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Peter Krefting]

Imran M Yousuf:

> Just try -
> git push remote branch :)

That is what I do. Unfortunately, the times I forged to name the branch, it 
pushes my master branch, which is different from the remote's, and I have to 
go to the other repository and reset it manually...

-- 
\\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Peter Krefting wrote:

> Imran M Yousuf:
> 
> > Just try -
> > git push remote branch :)
> 
> That is what I do. Unfortunately, the times I forged to name the branch, 
> it pushes my master branch, which is different from the remote's, and I 
> have to go to the other repository and reset it manually...

You can set

$ git config remote.<remote>.push invalid-branch-name

so that

$ git push <remote>

will give you an error.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Finn Arne Gangstad]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:44:49AM +0100, Peter Krefting wrote:
> Imran M Yousuf:
>
>> Just try -
>> git push remote branch :)
>
> That is what I do. Unfortunately, the times I forged to name the branch, 
> it pushes my master branch, which is different from the remote's, and I 
> have to go to the other repository and reset it manually...

I sent a patch series a few days ago to fix this in various ways,
adding a configuration variable push.default, and also indicating that
pushing nothing rather than pushing all matching branches is a safer
(and saner) default.

As you have also discovered, it is very easy to accidentally push
master to the wrong remote with the current default behavior.

- Finn Arne

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[John Tapsell]

2009/3/13 Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>:
> Hi!
>
> Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is there a
> way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular remote repository)
> just push the current branch?

> Or failing that, not allow me to run "git
> push" without specifying a branch?

I've been pushing for this behaviour, and there was a patch a few days
ago to do this.  I'm not sure if it is/will be committed.

John Tapsell

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:

> 2009/3/13 Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>:
>
> > Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is 
> > there a way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular 
> > remote repository) just push the current branch?
> 
> > Or failing that, not allow me to run "git push" without specifying a 
> > branch?
> 
> I've been pushing for this behaviour, and there was a patch a few days 
> ago to do this.  I'm not sure if it is/will be committed.

As Junio is a careful maintainer, he will not change anything radical 
which would piss of a lot of people _without_ a proper, long-term plan 
that gives users a chance.

I know, I once tried to push for something like that, and I am glad that 
Junio is too wise as to make Git unstable for existing users.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[John Tapsell]

2009/3/13 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/13 Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>:
>>
>> > Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is
>> > there a way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular
>> > remote repository) just push the current branch?
>>
>> > Or failing that, not allow me to run "git push" without specifying a
>> > branch?
>>
>> I've been pushing for this behaviour, and there was a patch a few days
>> ago to do this.  I'm not sure if it is/will be committed.
>
> As Junio is a careful maintainer, he will not change anything radical
> which would piss of a lot of people _without_ a proper, long-term plan
> that gives users a chance.
>
> I know, I once tried to push for something like that, and I am glad that
> Junio is too wise as to make Git unstable for existing users.

Understandable.  There were 6 patches, only the last one changes the
default.  Hopefully the first 5 will be applied and the 6 will
debated, then grudgingly applied :-)

John

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:

> Hopefully the first 5 will be applied and the 6 will debated, then 
> grudgingly applied :-)

No.  If it has to be applied grudgingly, it is most likely wrong.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[John Tapsell]

2009/3/13 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
>
>> Hopefully the first 5 will be applied and the 6 will debated, then
>> grudgingly applied :-)
>
> No.  If it has to be applied grudgingly, it is most likely wrong.

If there's an email about this every week from yet another person that
has been bitten by the current default, then the current default is
most likely wrong :-)

John

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Michael J Gruber]

John Tapsell venit, vidit, dixit 13.03.2009 14:56:
> 2009/3/13 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
>>
>>> Hopefully the first 5 will be applied and the 6 will debated, then
>>> grudgingly applied :-)
>>
>> No.  If it has to be applied grudgingly, it is most likely wrong.
> 
> If there's an email about this every week from yet another person that
> has been bitten by the current default, then the current default is
> most likely wrong :-)

I think I've used git every day this week, pushed several times, and
still have no bite-marks. Does this count as several votes in the other
direction?

Michael

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 729 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:

> 2009/3/13 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
> >
> >> Hopefully the first 5 will be applied and the 6 will debated, then 
> >> grudgingly applied :-)
> >
> > No.  If it has to be applied grudgingly, it is most likely wrong.
> 
> If there's an email about this every week from yet another person that 
> has been bitten by the current default, then the current default is most 
> likely wrong :-)

I suggest a different tack:

- try to come up with a solution that does not bite anybody,

- continue to modify the proposal until there are no objections left, and

- continue to be liked on the list.

;-)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Junio C Hamano]

John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com> writes:

> 2009/3/13 Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is there a
>> way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular remote repository)
>> just push the current branch?
>
>> Or failing that, not allow me to run "git
>> push" without specifying a branch?
>
> I've been pushing for this behaviour, and there was a patch a few days
> ago to do this.  I'm not sure if it is/will be committed.

The current status of the series is roughly as follows:

 * Finn Arne sent out a 6 patch series that consists of:

   0e118fe remote: Make "-" an alias for the current remote
   5a18380 New config option push.default
   0b9dcb9 git push: New options --matching and --current
   bf8552b git push: Display warning on unconfigured default push
   cf9d5ab git push: Document that "nothing" is the future push default
   3c2bcc2 git push: Change default for "git push" to nothing.

 * The main topic of the series are patches 2, 4, 5, 6:

   - Introduce a new configuration push.default;

   - Issue a warning when push.default is not set and 'git push' is run
     without saying what refspecs to push, and tell the users that the
     warning can be squelched by setting the configuration (set it to
     'matching' to keep the traditional, 'nothing' to get what Peter
     wants);

   - Reword the warning that the default will change to 'nothing';

   - Switch the default to 'nothing'.

   Which is a reasonable transition plan _if_ we were to change the
   default (except that I think the last one should still keep giving
   warning for people who learned git from the current documentation and
   the start using it after the default is changed).

   If you are changing the default, you have to make people who like the
   current "matching" behaviour suffer no matter how you go about it.  The
   above "start warning early, give chance to people to say 'I want to
   keep my default' before the default changes, and then finally change
   the default" would ease the pain of transition for them.  And the
   configuration option will help people who want new default to set it
   right away.

 * The series is queued in 'pu' for now, as it has a few issues (see mail
   archive for discussions):

   - The first "-" one; even though it may be useful to be able to say
     "the remote the current branch is associated with by default", using
     "-" as a short-hand for that might be harmful to the long term UI
     health, and further study was requested, which hasn't been responded
     yet.

   - The third "--matching/--current" one; --matching is unnecessary as we
     already have ":", --current turns out to be different from HEAD and
     is misnamed.  There also was somebody with an opinion that --current
     adds unnecessary complexity only to encourage a wrong workflow.

   In any case, these two do not have anything to do with the issue that
   "'matching refs' behaviour of a lazy 'git push' that does not say what
   refspecs to push is not always a useful default", and should be done as
   separate patches.  They should come after the dust settles after either
   applying the first two of the main part of the series or deciding to
   drop the main part of the series.

   Also the last one needs to adjust the tests because majority of them
   rely on the current 'matching' behaviour.  As the series lacks it,
   merging it all to 'pu' would make the result not pass the test suite,
   and I excluded the last few patches from 'pu' for now.

   The size of such a patch would be a rough indication how much pain you
   are proposing to incur on existing users.

 * Finn Arne sent the first one of a "replacement" patch series, which I
   looked at, but haven't had time to actually replace the ones that are
   queued in 'pu' (and I haven't seen the second and subsequent ones yet,
   so there is no rush on my end to do so at this moment).

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Miles Bader]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>    - The first "-" one; even though it may be useful to be able to say
>      "the remote the current branch is associated with by default", using
>      "-" as a short-hand for that might be harmful to the long term UI
>      health, and further study was requested, which hasn't been responded
>      yet.

I've often wished for such a thing in some contexts, actually...
e.g., "git diff REMOTE_BRANCH" to see what updates are pending if I
merge...  Also, it would be nice to have a more concise way to say
"git merge REMOTE_BRANCH".

I'm not sure "-" seems like the best syntax though... maybe it's a bit
_too_ short.

[Is there a general standard syntax for "keywords" in git, e.g., to
distinguish them from branch/rev names?  I mean, if the standard syntax
were "@foo", then one could imagine "git diff @remote" or something.]

-miles

-- 
Run away!  Run away!

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Jeff King]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:08:20AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

> e.g., "git diff REMOTE_BRANCH" to see what updates are pending if I
> merge...  Also, it would be nice to have a more concise way to say
> "git merge REMOTE_BRANCH".
> 
> I'm not sure "-" seems like the best syntax though... maybe it's a bit
> _too_ short.
> 
> [Is there a general standard syntax for "keywords" in git, e.g., to
> distinguish them from branch/rev names?  I mean, if the standard syntax
> were "@foo", then one could imagine "git diff @remote" or something.]

I think all-caps is the closest we get. E.g., you probably don't want to
name a branch MERGE_HEAD, ORIG_HEAD, FETCH_HEAD, etc. But it's purely
advisory; you _can_ make such branches and then deal with the ensuing
"ambiguous ref" messages.

-Peff

Re: Not pushing all branches?

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 08:48:55AM +0100, Peter Krefting wrote:

> Doing "git push remote" pushes all my local branches by default. Is there 
> a way to set it to *not* do that, and (for this particular remote 
> repository) just push the current branch? Or failing that, not allow me to 
> run "git push" without specifying a branch?
>
> The git-config manual page leads me to believe that I should recofigure  
> "remote.<name>.push", but it points me to the "refspec" spec on git-push,  
> which is a tad cryptic.

There seem to be a lot of responses in this thread, but nobody has
suggested:

  git config remote.$remote.push HEAD

It isn't mentioned in the git-push manpage; maybe a documentation patch
to give an example using HEAD would make sense?

-Peff

[PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Chris Johnsen]

---
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>   git config remote.$remote.push HEAD
> 
> It isn't mentioned in the git-push manpage; maybe a documentation
> patch to give an example using HEAD would make sense?

Here is a patch. It also attempts to document bare 'git push'.

In the resulting manpage the inline commands are not very
obvious (the HTML looks OK though). There is some sort of
formatting in there, but it does not seem to display any
differently from the surrounding text when I use man to view it
on my system.  Would it be better to do something like wrap
double quotes around the inline commands to help readers viewing
the manpage?
---
 Documentation/git-push.txt |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
index 4e7e5a7..fd53c49 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there.  See
 documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1].
 
 
-OPTIONS
--------
+OPTIONS[[OPTIONS]]
+------------------
 <repository>::
 	The "remote" repository that is destination of a push
 	operation.  This parameter can be either a URL
@@ -187,6 +187,28 @@ reason::
 Examples
 --------
 
+git push::
+	Works like `git push <remote>`, where <remote> is the
+	current branch's remote (or `origin`, if no remote is
+	configured for the current branch).
+
+git push origin::
+	Without additional configuration, works like
+	`git push origin :`.
++
+The default behavior of this command when no <refspec> is given can be
+configured by setting the `push` option of the remote.
++
+For example, to default to pushing only the current branch to `origin`
+use `git config remote.origin.push HEAD`.  Any valid <refspec> (like
+the ones in the examples below) can be configured as the default for
+`git push origin`.
+
+git push origin :::
+	Push "matching" branches to `origin`. See
+	<refspec> in the <<OPTIONS,OPTIONS>> section above for a
+	description of "matching" branches.
+
 git push origin master::
 	Find a ref that matches `master` in the source repository
 	(most likely, it would find `refs/heads/master`), and update
-- 
1.6.2

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Junio C Hamano]

The new text looks reasonable.  Sign-off?

Any improvement suggestions from others?

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 08:27:31PM -0500, Chris Johnsen wrote:

> In the resulting manpage the inline commands are not very
> obvious (the HTML looks OK though). There is some sort of
> formatting in there, but it does not seem to display any
> differently from the surrounding text when I use man to view it
> on my system.  Would it be better to do something like wrap
> double quotes around the inline commands to help readers viewing
> the manpage?

The problem is that they are supposed to set in a monospaced font, but
most terminals are already monospaced. This is actually a problem
throughout the documentation, although it is usually only for
single-word phrases (like `git-foo`), which don't look nearly as bad as
multi-word ones.

Actually, looking closer, the information seems to be lost entirely.
Asciidoc renders this to <literal> in the XML, but docbook seems to
throw it away when converting to a manpage. In theory it's possible to
apply our own xsl style to turn this into something else, and I think
that is a better solution than just trying to fix this one spot.

The question is how it _should_ be rendered. Monospace isn't really
useful for terminals. Maybe simply putting quotation marks around it
would cover all situations (I'm worried it will look funny for
single-word instances).


On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:26:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The new text looks reasonable.  Sign-off?
> 
> Any improvement suggestions from others?

It looks fine to me; my only concern is the typesetting, but I think
that should be fixed elsewhere, as outlined above.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Jeff King]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 04:34:34PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> The question is how it _should_ be rendered. Monospace isn't really
> useful for terminals. Maybe simply putting quotation marks around it
> would cover all situations (I'm worried it will look funny for
> single-word instances).

And here's a patch that does that; skimming through the output it
doesn't look too bad. What do you guys think?

---
diff --git a/Documentation/callouts.xsl b/Documentation/callouts.xsl
index 6a361a2..01df100 100644
--- a/Documentation/callouts.xsl
+++ b/Documentation/callouts.xsl
@@ -27,4 +27,6 @@
   </xsl:if>
 </xsl:template>
 
+<xsl:template match="literal">"<xsl:apply-templates/>"</xsl:template>
+
 </xsl:stylesheet>

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Chris Johnsen]

On 2009 Mar 14, at 15:56, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 04:34:34PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > The question is how it _should_ be rendered. Monospace isn't really
> > useful for terminals. Maybe simply putting quotation marks around it
> > would cover all situations (I'm worried it will look funny for
> > single-word instances).
>
> And here's a patch that does that; skimming through the output it
> doesn't look too bad. What do you guys think?
>
> ---

The presentation seems OK to me. I thought of two issues:

1) literals that contain a double quote

	$ git grep '`[^`]*"[^`]`' | cat
	config.txt:You can have `[section]` if you have `[section "subsection"]`, but you

   There might be a better regexp to find these, I did not think
   about it too long. The above "hit" seems like a reasonable
   literal string. Maybe it is OK to live with this one
   ("[section "subsection"]").

2) manpage-1.72.xsl 

   I have been setting DOCBOOK_XSL_172 to avoid the ".ft" problem
   (<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/112943>;
   my system is Mac OS X 10.4.11 with MacPorts asciidoc 8.3.1,
   xmlto version 0.0.21, and docbook-xsl 1.74.0). Since non-null
   DOCBOOK_XSL_172 replaces callouts.xsl with manpage-1.72.xsl, I
   added the line to manpage-1.72.xsl.

   Here is the patch if it is deemed appropriate (same line Peff
   added to callouts.xsl):

-- >8 -- 
Subject: [PATCH] manpage-1.72.xsl: wrap inline literal text with double quotes

Signed-off-by: Chris Johnsen <chris_johnsen@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/manpage-1.72.xsl |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/manpage-1.72.xsl b/Documentation/manpage-1.72.xsl
index 4065a3a..a39fd55 100644
--- a/Documentation/manpage-1.72.xsl
+++ b/Documentation/manpage-1.72.xsl
@@ -18,4 +18,6 @@
 	<xsl:text>&#x2302;br&#10;</xsl:text>
 </xsl:template>
 
+<xsl:template match="literal">"<xsl:apply-templates/>"</xsl:template>
+
 </xsl:stylesheet>
-- 
1.6.2

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only

[Chris Johnsen]

On 2009 Mar 14, at 21:49, Chris Johnsen wrote:
> On 2009 Mar 14, at 15:56, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 04:34:34PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > > The question is how it _should_ be rendered. Monospace isn't really
> > > useful for terminals. Maybe simply putting quotation marks around it
> > > would cover all situations (I'm worried it will look funny for
> > > single-word instances).
> >
> > And here's a patch that does that; skimming through the output it
> > doesn't look too bad. What do you guys think?
> >
> > ---
>
> The presentation seems OK to me. I thought of two issues:
>
> 1) literals that contain a double quote
>
> 	$ git grep '`[^`]*"[^`]`' | cat
> 	config.txt:You can have `[section]` if you have `[section "subsection"]`, but you
>
>    There might be a better regexp to find these, I did not think
>    about it too long. The above "hit" seems like a reasonable

Of course the above regexp fails miserably since there are many
other instances of `..."...` in the documentation. I eventually
ended up using this one:

	git grep -e "\`.*['\"]" -e "['\"].*\`" master -- Documentation

It catches a lot more than just "`...`" and `"..."`, but I tried
to plow through it all. I turns out that there are lots of
instances of double quotes inside or just outside backticks in
the documentation.

I edited out all the ones that did not seem to be meaningful. But
there are still many places where there is a meaningful double
quote inside a literal section. So, I think the workaround of
wrapping double quotes around manpage-destined literal sections
may not work well.

A patch to remove much of the extra quoting/emphasis
around/inside literal sections follows, but it will likely
negatively affect the manpages unless we can find a different way
to render the literal sections in manpages. It seems likely that
this patch should just be "parked" in the list archives until
someone can work out a way to emphasize the literal sections for
manpages.

The '`...`' style used in parts of config.txt yields underlined
text in my terminal-based view of the manpage. If underlining (or
whatever other formatting) could be applied to manpage-destined
literal text, that might work out better. I have not yet searched
for a way to make that happen through XSL. It might be as simple
as taking Peff's approach and using \fI and \fR instead of double
quotes (codes taken from other text that shows up as underlined
on my system; also the more I look into the asciidoc/docbook
stuff, the less I think anything involving more than one version
can be "simple").

-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: remove extra quoting/emphasis around literal texts

If literal text (asciidoc `...`) can be rendered in a differently from
normal text for each output format (man, HTML), then we do not need
extra quotes or other wrapping around inline literal text segments.

config.txt

  Change '`...`' to `...`. In asciidoc, the single quotes provide
  emphasis, literal text should be distintive enough.

  Change "`...`" to `...`. These double quotes do not work if present
  in the described config value, so drop them.

git-checkout.txt

  Change "`...`" to `...` or `"..."`. All instances are command line
  argument examples. One "`-`" becomes `-`. Two others are involve
  curly braces, so move the double quotes inside the literal region to
  indicate that they might need to be quoted on the command line of
  certain shells (tcsh).

git-merge.txt

  Change "`...`" to `...`. All instances are used to describe merge
  conflict markers. The quotes should are not important.

git-rev-parse.txt

  Change "`...`" to `...`. All instances are around command line
  arguments where no in-shell quoting should be necessary.

gitcli.txt

  Change `"..."` to `...`. All instances are around command line
  examples or single command arguments. They do not semanticly belong
  inside the literal text, and they are not needed outside it.

glossary-content.txt
user-manual.txt

  Change "`...`" to `...`. All instances were around command lines.

Signed-off-by: Chris Johnsen <chris_johnsen@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/config.txt           |   24 ++++++++++++------------
 Documentation/git-checkout.txt     |    4 ++--
 Documentation/git-merge.txt        |    6 +++---
 Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt    |    8 ++++----
 Documentation/gitcli.txt           |   24 ++++++++++++------------
 Documentation/glossary-content.txt |    2 +-
 Documentation/user-manual.txt      |    6 +++---
 7 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt
index 14f861a..11f37d3 100644
--- a/Documentation/config.txt
+++ b/Documentation/config.txt
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ blank lines are ignored.
 The file consists of sections and variables.  A section begins with
 the name of the section in square brackets and continues until the next
 section begins.  Section names are not case sensitive.  Only alphanumeric
-characters, '`-`' and '`.`' are allowed in section names.  Each variable
+characters, `-` and `.` are allowed in section names.  Each variable
 must belong to some section, which means that there must be section
 header before first setting of a variable.
 
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ in the section header, like in example below:
 --------
 
 Subsection names can contain any characters except newline (doublequote
-'`"`' and backslash have to be escaped as '`\"`' and '`\\`',
+`"` and backslash have to be escaped as `\"` and `\\`,
 respectively) and are case sensitive.  Section header cannot span multiple
 lines.  Variables may belong directly to a section or to a given subsection.
 You can have `[section]` if you have `[section "subsection"]`, but you
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ All the other lines are recognized as setting variables, in the form
 'name = value'.  If there is no equal sign on the line, the entire line
 is taken as 'name' and the variable is recognized as boolean "true".
 The variable names are case-insensitive and only alphanumeric
-characters and '`-`' are allowed.  There can be more than one value
+characters and `-` are allowed.  There can be more than one value
 for a given variable; we say then that variable is multivalued.
 
 Leading and trailing whitespace in a variable value is discarded.
@@ -69,15 +69,15 @@ String values may be entirely or partially enclosed in double quotes.
 You need to enclose variable value in double quotes if you want to
 preserve leading or trailing whitespace, or if variable value contains
 beginning of comment characters (if it contains '#' or ';').
-Double quote '`"`' and backslash '`\`' characters in variable value must
-be escaped: use '`\"`' for '`"`' and '`\\`' for '`\`'.
+Double quote `"` and backslash `\` characters in variable value must
+be escaped: use `\"` for `"` and `\\` for `\`.
 
-The following escape sequences (beside '`\"`' and '`\\`') are recognized:
-'`\n`' for newline character (NL), '`\t`' for horizontal tabulation (HT, TAB)
-and '`\b`' for backspace (BS).  No other char escape sequence, nor octal
+The following escape sequences (beside `\"` and `\\`) are recognized:
+`\n` for newline character (NL), `\t` for horizontal tabulation (HT, TAB)
+and `\b` for backspace (BS).  No other char escape sequence, nor octal
 char sequences are valid.
 
-Variable value ending in a '`\`' is continued on the next line in the
+Variable value ending in a `\` is continued on the next line in the
 customary UNIX fashion.
 
 Some variables may require special value format.
@@ -382,9 +382,9 @@ core.pager::
 	to override git's default settings this way, you need
 	to be explicit.  For example, to disable the S option
 	in a backward compatible manner, set `core.pager`
-	to "`less -+$LESS -FRX`".  This will be passed to the
+	to `less -+$LESS -FRX`.  This will be passed to the
 	shell by git, which will translate the final command to
-	"`LESS=FRSX less -+FRSX -FRX`".
+	`LESS=FRSX less -+FRSX -FRX`.
 
 core.whitespace::
 	A comma separated list of common whitespace problems to
@@ -1161,7 +1161,7 @@ pager.<cmd>::
 	particular git subcommand when writing to a tty.  If
 	`\--paginate` or `\--no-pager` is specified on the command line,
 	it takes precedence over this option.  To disable pagination for
-	all commands, set `core.pager` or 'GIT_PAGER' to "`cat`".
+	all commands, set `core.pager` or `GIT_PAGER` to `cat`.
 
 pull.octopus::
 	The default merge strategy to use when pulling multiple branches
diff --git a/Documentation/git-checkout.txt b/Documentation/git-checkout.txt
index 125d8f3..1a6c19e 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-checkout.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-checkout.txt
@@ -133,9 +133,9 @@ the conflicted merge in the specified paths.
 When this parameter names a non-branch (but still a valid commit object),
 your HEAD becomes 'detached'.
 +
-As a special case, the "`@\{-N\}`" syntax for the N-th last branch
+As a special case, the `"@\{-N\}"` syntax for the N-th last branch
 checks out the branch (instead of detaching).  You may also specify
-"`-`" which is synonymous with "`@\{-1\}`".
+`-` which is synonymous with `"@\{-1\}"`.
 
 
 Detached HEAD
diff --git a/Documentation/git-merge.txt b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
index f7be584..cc0d30f 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-merge.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-merge.txt
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ And here is another line that is cleanly resolved or unmodified.
 ------------
 
 The area where a pair of conflicting changes happened is marked with markers
-"`<<<<<<<`", "`=======`", and "`>>>>>>>`".  The part before the "`=======`"
+`<<<<<<<`, `=======`, and `>>>>>>>`.  The part before the `=======`
 is typically your side, and the part afterwards is typically their side.
 
 The default format does not show what the original said in the conflicting
@@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ Git makes conflict resolution easy.
 And here is another line that is cleanly resolved or unmodified.
 ------------
 
-In addition to the "`<<<<<<<`", "`=======`", and "`>>>>>>>`" markers, it uses
-another "`|||||||`" marker that is followed by the original text.  You can
+In addition to the `<<<<<<<`, `=======`, and `>>>>>>>` markers, it uses
+another `|||||||` marker that is followed by the original text.  You can
 tell that the original just stated a fact, and your side simply gave in to
 that statement and gave up, while the other side tried to have a more
 positive attitude.  You can sometimes come up with a better resolution by
diff --git a/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt b/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt
index 3ccef2f..5ed2bc8 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt
@@ -299,18 +299,18 @@ previous section means the set of commits reachable from that
 commit, following the commit ancestry chain.
 
 To exclude commits reachable from a commit, a prefix `{caret}`
-notation is used.  E.g. "`{caret}r1 r2`" means commits reachable
+notation is used.  E.g. `{caret}r1 r2` means commits reachable
 from `r2` but exclude the ones reachable from `r1`.
 
 This set operation appears so often that there is a shorthand
 for it.  When you have two commits `r1` and `r2` (named according
 to the syntax explained in SPECIFYING REVISIONS above), you can ask
 for commits that are reachable from r2 excluding those that are reachable
-from r1 by "`{caret}r1 r2`" and it can be written as "`r1..r2`".
+from r1 by `{caret}r1 r2` and it can be written as `r1..r2`.
 
-A similar notation "`r1\...r2`" is called symmetric difference
+A similar notation `r1\...r2` is called symmetric difference
 of `r1` and `r2` and is defined as
-"`r1 r2 --not $(git merge-base --all r1 r2)`".
+`r1 r2 --not $(git merge-base --all r1 r2)`.
 It is the set of commits that are reachable from either one of
 `r1` or `r2` but not from both.
 
diff --git a/Documentation/gitcli.txt b/Documentation/gitcli.txt
index 29e5929..be39ed7 100644
--- a/Documentation/gitcli.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gitcli.txt
@@ -46,20 +46,20 @@ Here are the rules regarding the "flags" that you should follow when you are
 scripting git:
 
  * it's preferred to use the non dashed form of git commands, which means that
-   you should prefer `"git foo"` to `"git-foo"`.
+   you should prefer `git foo` to `git-foo`.
 
- * splitting short options to separate words (prefer `"git foo -a -b"`
-   to `"git foo -ab"`, the latter may not even work).
+ * splitting short options to separate words (prefer `git foo -a -b`
+   to `git foo -ab`, the latter may not even work).
 
  * when a command line option takes an argument, use the 'sticked' form.  In
-   other words, write `"git foo -oArg"` instead of `"git foo -o Arg"` for short
-   options, and `"git foo --long-opt=Arg"` instead of `"git foo --long-opt Arg"`
+   other words, write `git foo -oArg` instead of `git foo -o Arg` for short
+   options, and `git foo --long-opt=Arg` instead of `git foo --long-opt Arg`
    for long options.  An option that takes optional option-argument must be
    written in the 'sticked' form.
 
  * when you give a revision parameter to a command, make sure the parameter is
    not ambiguous with a name of a file in the work tree.  E.g. do not write
-   `"git log -1 HEAD"` but write `"git log -1 HEAD --"`; the former will not work
+   `git log -1 HEAD` but write `git log -1 HEAD --`; the former will not work
    if you happen to have a file called `HEAD` in the work tree.
 
 
@@ -99,17 +99,17 @@ usage: git-describe [options] <committish>*
 
 Negating options
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Options with long option names can be negated by prefixing `"--no-"`. For
-example, `"git branch"` has the option `"--track"` which is 'on' by default. You
-can use `"--no-track"` to override that behaviour. The same goes for `"--color"`
-and `"--no-color"`.
+Options with long option names can be negated by prefixing `--no-`. For
+example, `git branch` has the option `--track` which is 'on' by default. You
+can use `--no-track` to override that behaviour. The same goes for `--color`
+and `--no-color`.
 
 
 Aggregating short options
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Commands that support the enhanced option parser allow you to aggregate short
-options. This means that you can for example use `"git rm -rf"` or
-`"git clean -fdx"`.
+options. This means that you can for example use `git rm -rf` or
+`git clean -fdx`.
 
 
 Separating argument from the option
diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
index 9afca75..4fc1cf1 100644
--- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
+++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ This commit is referred to as a "merge commit", or sometimes just a
 	'origin' is used for that purpose. New upstream updates
 	will be fetched into remote <<def_tracking_branch,tracking branches>> named
 	origin/name-of-upstream-branch, which you can see using
-	"`git branch -r`".
+	`git branch -r`.
 
 [[def_pack]]pack::
 	A set of objects which have been compressed into one file (to save space
diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index 96af897..e33b29b 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
@@ -1136,10 +1136,10 @@ Ignoring files
 A project will often generate files that you do 'not' want to track with git.
 This typically includes files generated by a build process or temporary
 backup files made by your editor. Of course, 'not' tracking files with git
-is just a matter of 'not' calling "`git-add`" on them. But it quickly becomes
+is just a matter of 'not' calling `git-add` on them. But it quickly becomes
 annoying to have these untracked files lying around; e.g. they make
-"`git add .`" practically useless, and they keep showing up in the output of
-"`git status`".
+`git add .` practically useless, and they keep showing up in the output of
+`git status`.
 
 You can tell git to ignore certain files by creating a file called .gitignore
 in the top level of your working directory, with contents such as:
-- 
1.6.2

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Jeff King]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:49:09PM -0500, Chris Johnsen wrote:

> 1) literals that contain a double quote
> 
> 	$ git grep '`[^`]*"[^`]`' | cat
> 	config.txt:You can have `[section]` if you have `[section "subsection"]`, but you
> 
>    There might be a better regexp to find these, I did not think
>    about it too long. The above "hit" seems like a reasonable
>    literal string. Maybe it is OK to live with this one
>    ("[section "subsection"]").

Hmm, good point. Something with typeface that could not be in the string
contents would probably be a better choice. The linkgit: links appear
bolded. We could do that. We could also try underlining, though that
might be hard to read if any strings contained underscores.

I tried to find examples of other manpages that faced the same problem.
I would guess that bold is the best bet (for example, the 'cat' manpage
on my system looks like (excuse my fake markup):

  -A, --show-all
      equivalent to <b>-vET</b>

> 2) manpage-1.72.xsl 
> 
>    I have been setting DOCBOOK_XSL_172 to avoid the ".ft" problem
>    (<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/112943>;
>    my system is Mac OS X 10.4.11 with MacPorts asciidoc 8.3.1,
>    xmlto version 0.0.21, and docbook-xsl 1.74.0). Since non-null
>    DOCBOOK_XSL_172 replaces callouts.xsl with manpage-1.72.xsl, I
>    added the line to manpage-1.72.xsl.

The "callouts" XSL is obviously becoming more than that (there is
already a "I know, this is not a callout, but where else to put it?"
comment in it). It probably makes sense to rename it to manpage.xsl (or
even manpage-1.8.xsl), factor out common parts to manpage-base.xsl, and
then include the -base version from both manpage and manpage-1.72.xsl.

Want to do a patch?

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Actually, looking closer, the information seems to be lost entirely.
> Asciidoc renders this to <literal> in the XML, but docbook seems to
> throw it away when converting to a manpage. In theory it's possible to
> apply our own xsl style to turn this into something else, and I think
> that is a better solution than just trying to fix this one spot.

When I check the asciidoc output for manpages (which I rarely do), I often
render it to Postscript to see the typesetting.  I guess not many people
consider manpages are for printing anymore but are solely for monospaced
terminal consumption these days.

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Jeff King]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 02:25:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Actually, looking closer, the information seems to be lost entirely.
> > Asciidoc renders this to <literal> in the XML, but docbook seems to
> > throw it away when converting to a manpage. In theory it's possible to
> > apply our own xsl style to turn this into something else, and I think
> > that is a better solution than just trying to fix this one spot.
> 
> When I check the asciidoc output for manpages (which I rarely do), I often
> render it to Postscript to see the typesetting.  I guess not many people
> consider manpages are for printing anymore but are solely for monospaced
> terminal consumption these days.

How do you render it? From the XML, or from the roff? Because if I am
reading it right (which it is entirely possible that I am not), the
information is lost in the roff version. And that is the version I would
expect people to be looking at (via man -Tps, or just plain man).

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 02:25:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>> 
>> > Actually, looking closer, the information seems to be lost entirely.
>> > Asciidoc renders this to <literal> in the XML, but docbook seems to
>> > throw it away when converting to a manpage. In theory it's possible to
>> > apply our own xsl style to turn this into something else, and I think
>> > that is a better solution than just trying to fix this one spot.
>> 
>> When I check the asciidoc output for manpages (which I rarely do), I often
>> render it to Postscript to see the typesetting.  I guess not many people
>> consider manpages are for printing anymore but are solely for monospaced
>> terminal consumption these days.
>
> How do you render it? From the XML, or from the roff? Because if I am
> reading it right (which it is entirely possible that I am not), the
> information is lost in the roff version. And that is the version I would
> expect people to be looking at (via man -Tps, or just plain man).

I was agreeing with you; I let "man -Tps -l git-foo.1" render from roff
input and I can see that the output from asciidoc toolchain) prepared as
roff input does not consider printed pages so important anymore.

[PATCH v2] git-push.txt: describe how to default to pushing only current branch

[Chris Johnsen]

Signed-off-by: Chris Johnsen <chris_johnsen@pobox.com>
---
On 2009 Mar 14, at 14:26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The new text looks reasonable.  Sign-off?

Oops, sorry for the omission. Here it is again with the S-o-B (or
insert it by hand if you like).
---
 Documentation/git-push.txt |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
index 4e7e5a7..fd53c49 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there.  See
 documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1].
 
 
-OPTIONS
--------
+OPTIONS[[OPTIONS]]
+------------------
 <repository>::
 	The "remote" repository that is destination of a push
 	operation.  This parameter can be either a URL
@@ -187,6 +187,28 @@ reason::
 Examples
 --------
 
+git push::
+	Works like `git push <remote>`, where <remote> is the
+	current branch's remote (or `origin`, if no remote is
+	configured for the current branch).
+
+git push origin::
+	Without additional configuration, works like
+	`git push origin :`.
++
+The default behavior of this command when no <refspec> is given can be
+configured by setting the `push` option of the remote.
++
+For example, to default to pushing only the current branch to `origin`
+use `git config remote.origin.push HEAD`.  Any valid <refspec> (like
+the ones in the examples below) can be configured as the default for
+`git push origin`.
+
+git push origin :::
+	Push "matching" branches to `origin`. See
+	<refspec> in the <<OPTIONS,OPTIONS>> section above for a
+	description of "matching" branches.
+
 git push origin master::
 	Find a ref that matches `master` in the source repository
 	(most likely, it would find `refs/heads/master`), and update
-- 
1.6.2