From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: push.default: current vs upstream Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20120412221110.GA22426@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120406071520.GD25301@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120406080004.GA27940@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F7FF19B.1060407@alum.mit.edu> <20120407075150.GA18168@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F7FFD7A.80104@pileofstuff.org> <20120412071150.GB31122@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F874639.5090207@pileofstuff.org> <7vlim04ou1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Andrew Sayers , Michael Haggerty , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 13 00:11:19 2012 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 1SISEZ-0003Sc-8X for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:11:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757361Ab2DLWLN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:11:13 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:60429 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751049Ab2DLWLM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:11:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 32189 invoked by uid 107); 12 Apr 2012 22:11:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:11:18 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vlim04ou1.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, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:33:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Andrew Sayers writes: > > > So if the problem is that the documentation cues the reader to think > > about upstreams but not to think about downstreams, the solution is to > > find excuses to talk more about downstreams. As far as I'm concerned > > @{upstream} means "the place that commits come from when I `git pull`", > > so it makes perfect sense to me that @{downstream} would mean "the place > > commits go to when I `git push`". > > In a separate message I completely misunderstood what you meant by > "downstream". Yeah, I also took it to mean that the "downstream" of your "upstream" would be where you started (though as you mentioned, it is not 1-to-1, so that would not work anyway). But this: > If you had something like this: > > [remote "origin"] > url = ... > [remote "destination"] > pushURL = ... > > [branch "topic"] > remote = origin > merge = refs/heads/master > pushRemote = destination # new > push = refs/heads/topic # new > > you could express that asymmetric layout in a natural way. When you say > "git push" while on your "topic" branch, it will go to "destination" > remote to update their "topic" branch. is much more useful (and I already complained about the lack of something like pushRemote recently). I just think it should not be called "downstream", as it is not the reverse of upstream. -Peff