From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: introduce format.defaultTo Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:43:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20140106204353.GB643@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1389028732-27760-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1389028732-27760-3-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <20140106201854.GA28162@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Ramkumar Ramachandra , Git List To: John Szakmeister X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 06 21:44:01 2014 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 1W0H1k-00019R-Ec for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:44:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756124AbaAFUn4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:43:56 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:56095 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755760AbaAFUnz (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:43:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 17242 invoked by uid 102); 6 Jan 2014 20:43:55 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 14:43:55 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:43:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:29:57PM -0500, John Szakmeister wrote: > > Yeah, I had similar thoughts. I personally use "branch.*.merge" as > > "forkedFrom", and it seems like we are going that way anyway with things > > like "git rebase" and "git merge" defaulting to upstream. But then there > > is "git push -u" and "push.default = upstream", which treats the > > upstream config as something else entirely. > > Just for more reference, I rarely use "branch.*.merge" as > "forkedFrom". I typically want to use master as my target, but like > Ram, I publish my changes elsewhere for safe keeping. I think in a > typical, feature branch-based workflow @{u} would be nearly useless. In my feature-branch development for git.git, my upstream is almost always origin/master[1]. However, sometimes feature branches have dependencies[2] on each other. Representing that via the "upstream" field makes sense, since that is what you forked from, and what you would want "git rebase" to start from. -Peff [1] I do not even have a local "master" branch for git.git work, as it would just be a pain to keep up to date. I am either working directly on a topic branch, or I am integrating in my own personal branch. [2] You should try to minimize dependencies between feature branches, of course, but sometimes they simply form a logical progression of features.