From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>,
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:13:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130415171348.GI2278@serenity.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0u3=FEuifS8KaGy3Y_mjtjeuL1PfChSUco_0TdOXp-jg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:39:40AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:59 AM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > So the question is "what is the natural extension of the current
> > behaviour?", and the answer for me is "it's completely new", but others
> > have different (and conflicting) internal models that give different
> > answers.
>
> I don't think this does anybody any service. If the current behavior
> is wrong, and if users all over the Internet is any indication, it is;
> we do not want to continue such bad behavior. If the new
> functionality has a different behavior, it only makes sense to change
> the old behavior to make it consistent.
The current "push.default = matching" behaviour may be wrong, but I
haven't seen anyone say that the fundamental "'git push' does something
depending on push.default" and "'git push there ref...' specifies
exactly what to do" is broken.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-15 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-12 15:33 [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-12 22:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-13 4:49 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-14 4:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-14 8:33 ` Jakub Narębski
2013-04-14 13:29 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-15 3:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-15 7:07 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-04-15 7:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-15 8:35 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 9:17 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-15 9:46 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 9:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-15 9:44 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-15 9:59 ` John Keeping
2013-04-15 16:39 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-04-15 17:13 ` John Keeping [this message]
2013-04-15 17:18 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-04-15 9:35 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-04-16 2:05 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-04-16 2:13 ` Jonathan Nieder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130415171348.GI2278@serenity.lan \
--to=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).