From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] branch: display publish branch Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:23:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20140412112344.GA14820@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1397156686-31349-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1397156686-31349-7-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <53471d0b4c8dc_d696b12f08c@nysa.notmuch> <20140411111750.GA28858@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140411134801.GB5871@nysa.casa.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra , Git List , Matthieu Moy , John Szakmeister To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 12 13:24:24 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 1WYw2p-0001Fp-Nl for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:24:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755433AbaDLLXt (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:23:49 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58493 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754319AbaDLLXs (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:23:48 -0400 Received: (qmail 25863 invoked by uid 102); 12 Apr 2014 11:23:49 -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; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:23:49 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:23:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140411134801.GB5871@nysa.casa.local> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:48:01AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I think of @{publish} as "the branch the user has configured to push > to"; it overrides all other configurations (push.default and push > refspecs). I wouldn't mind having a @{push} *in addition* to @{publish} > that would have the behavior you mention, but for @{publish} I'm pretty > certain the behavior I want is that it maps *directly* to what the user > has configured. I guess I don't understand why we need "branch.*.push" when we already have push refspecs that do the same thing (and are more powerful, as they can glob). The behavior you describe is not useful to me, as it would mean having to manage branch.*.push as a duplicate of the information that is already found in "remote.$(git config remote.pushdefault).push". I do not mind if the two co-exist, but please do not take the short @{p} as your series does (not only because of @{push}, but also because @{pull} has been mentioned elsewhere as a possible other name for @{upstream}). -Peff