From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Separate default push/pull? Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:58:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20100213115834.GA7385@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100212001417.GC21930@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7veikrl1m1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100212010549.GA23303@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vvde3dmhp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Chris Packham , David Abrahams , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 13 12:58:38 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NgGdy-0006Xr-3t for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:58:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752641Ab0BML6d (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:58:33 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:60376 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752416Ab0BML6c (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:58:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 13858 invoked by uid 107); 13 Feb 2010 11:58:41 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:58:41 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:58:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vvde3dmhp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:57:54PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > In a distributed setup, I don't think it is that uncommon to not want to > > push to the place you pull from. You are generally pulling and building > > on somebody else's work, so if there is no central repo, you will be > > pushing to somewhere that is not where you pulled it. > > You are probably right. > > It still feels funny to see "git pull" and "git push" goes to different > places, but as long as that is what the user explicitly configures, that's > fine. By the way, I am a little iffy on the configuration I suggested. Even though it matches David's workflow, it seems unintuitive to me that a "push.defaultremote" variable would override what's in "branch.*.remote". -Peff