[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Junio C Hamano]

A release candidate GIT 1.6.4.rc1 is available at the usual places
for testing:

  http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/

  git-1.6.4.rc1.tar.{gz,bz2}			(source tarball)
  git-htmldocs-1.6.4.rc1.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
  git-manpages-1.6.4.rc1.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)

The RPM binary packages for a few architectures are found in:

  testing/git-*-1.6.4.rc1-1.fc9.$arch.rpm	(RPM)

GIT v1.6.4 Release Notes (draft)
================================

With the next major release, "git push" into a branch that is
currently checked out will be refused by default.  You can choose
what should happen upon such a push by setting the configuration
variable receive.denyCurrentBranch in the receiving repository.

To ease the transition plan, the receiving repository of such a
push running this release will issue a big warning when the
configuration variable is missing.  Please refer to:

  http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#non-bare
  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/107758/focus=108007

for more details on the reason why this change is needed and the
transition plan.

For a similar reason, "git push $there :$killed" to delete the branch
$killed in a remote repository $there, if $killed branch is the current
branch pointed at by its HEAD, gets a large warning.  You can choose what
should happen upon such a push by setting the configuration variable
receive.denyDeleteCurrent in the receiving repository.

When the user does not tell "git push" what to push, it has always
pushed matching refs.  For some people it is unexpected, and a new
configuration variable push.default has been introduced to allow
changing a different default behaviour.  To advertise the new feature,
a big warning is issued if this is not configured and a git push without
arguments is attempted.

	Side note: we might want to tone this down, as it does not seem
	likely for us to change the default behaviour when this option is
	not set.


Updates since v1.6.3
--------------------

(subsystems)

 * gitweb Perl style clean-up.

 * git-svn updates, including a new --authors-prog option to map author
   names by invoking an external program.

(portability)

 * We feed iconv with "UTF-8" instead of "utf8"; the former is
   understood more widely.

(performance)

(usability, bells and whistles)

 * "git add --edit" lets users edit the whole patch text to fine-tune what
   is added to the index.

 * "git log --graph" draws graphs more compactly by using horizonal lines
   when able.

 * "git log --decorate" shows shorter refnames by stripping well-known
   refs/* prefix.

 * "git send-email" understands quoted aliases in .mailrc files (might
   have to be backported to 1.6.3.X).

 * "git send-email" can fetch the sender address from the configuration
   variable "sendmail.from" (and "sendmail.<identity>.from").

 * "git show-branch" can color its output.

 * "add" and "update" subcommands to "git submodule" learned --reference
   option to use local clone with references.

(developers)

 * A major part of the "git bisect" wrapper has moved to C.

Fixes since v1.6.3
------------------

All of the fixes in v1.6.3.X maintenance series are included in this
release, unless otherwise noted.

Here are fixes that this release has, but have not been backported to
v1.6.3.X series.

 * The way Git.pm sets up a Repository object was not friendly to callers
   that chdir around.  It now internally records the repository location
   as an absolute path when autodetected.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Tommy Nordgren]

Testing a build of this version fails at a late stage, with an error  
that aborts testing.
My system is Mac OS X 10.5.8
Fragment of output at failure:
*** t9200-git-cvsexportcommit.sh ***
*   ok 1: New file
..snip
* FAIL 14: re-commit a removed filename which remains in CVS attic
	
	
	    (cd "$CVSWORK" &&
	     echo >attic_gremlin &&
	     cvs -Q add attic_gremlin &&
	     cvs -Q ci -m "added attic_gremlin" &&
	     rm attic_gremlin &&
	     cvs -Q rm attic_gremlin &&
	     cvs -Q ci -m "removed attic_gremlin") &&
	
	    echo > attic_gremlin &&
	    git add attic_gremlin &&
	    git commit -m "Added attic_gremlin" &&
		git cvsexportcommit -w "$CVSWORK" -c HEAD &&
	    (cd "$CVSWORK"; cvs -Q update -d) &&
	    test -f "$CVSWORK/attic_gremlin"
	
* failed 1 among 14 test(s)

On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:57 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> A release candidate GIT 1.6.4.rc1 is available at the usual places
> for testing:
>
>  http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/
>
>  git-1.6.4.rc1.tar.{gz,bz2}			(source tarball)
>  git-htmldocs-1.6.4.rc1.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
>  git-manpages-1.6.4.rc1.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
>
> The RPM binary packages for a few architectures are found in:
>
>  testing/git-*-1.6.4.rc1-1.fc9.$arch.rpm	(RPM)
>
> GIT v1.6.4 Release Notes (draft)
> ================================
>
> With the next major release, "git push" into a branch that is
> currently checked out will be refused by default.  You can choose
> what should happen upon such a push by setting the configuration
> variable receive.denyCurrentBranch in the receiving repository.
>
> To ease the transition plan, the receiving repository of such a
> push running this release will issue a big warning when the
> configuration variable is missing.  Please refer to:
>
>  http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#non-bare
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/107758/focus=108007
>
> for more details on the reason why this change is needed and the
> transition plan.
>
> For a similar reason, "git push $there :$killed" to delete the branch
> $killed in a remote repository $there, if $killed branch is the  
> current
> branch pointed at by its HEAD, gets a large warning.  You can choose  
> what
> should happen upon such a push by setting the configuration variable
> receive.denyDeleteCurrent in the receiving repository.
>
> When the user does not tell "git push" what to push, it has always
> pushed matching refs.  For some people it is unexpected, and a new
> configuration variable push.default has been introduced to allow
> changing a different default behaviour.  To advertise the new feature,
> a big warning is issued if this is not configured and a git push  
> without
> arguments is attempted.
>
> 	Side note: we might want to tone this down, as it does not seem
> 	likely for us to change the default behaviour when this option is
> 	not set.
>
>
> Updates since v1.6.3
> --------------------
>
> (subsystems)
>
> * gitweb Perl style clean-up.
>
> * git-svn updates, including a new --authors-prog option to map author
>   names by invoking an external program.
>
> (portability)
>
> * We feed iconv with "UTF-8" instead of "utf8"; the former is
>   understood more widely.
>
> (performance)
>
> (usability, bells and whistles)
>
> * "git add --edit" lets users edit the whole patch text to fine-tune  
> what
>   is added to the index.
>
> * "git log --graph" draws graphs more compactly by using horizonal  
> lines
>   when able.
>
> * "git log --decorate" shows shorter refnames by stripping well-known
>   refs/* prefix.
>
> * "git send-email" understands quoted aliases in .mailrc files (might
>   have to be backported to 1.6.3.X).
>
> * "git send-email" can fetch the sender address from the configuration
>   variable "sendmail.from" (and "sendmail.<identity>.from").
>
> * "git show-branch" can color its output.
>
> * "add" and "update" subcommands to "git submodule" learned -- 
> reference
>   option to use local clone with references.
>
> (developers)
>
> * A major part of the "git bisect" wrapper has moved to C.
>
> Fixes since v1.6.3
> ------------------
>
> All of the fixes in v1.6.3.X maintenance series are included in this
> release, unless otherwise noted.
>
> Here are fixes that this release has, but have not been backported to
> v1.6.3.X series.
>
> * The way Git.pm sets up a Repository object was not friendly to  
> callers
>   that chdir around.  It now internally records the repository  
> location
>   as an absolute path when autodetected.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

------------------------------------------------------
"Home is not where you are born, but where your heart finds peace" -
Tommy Nordgren, "The dying old crone"
tommy.nordgren@comhem.se

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Jeff Garzik]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> GIT v1.6.4 Release Notes (draft)
> ================================
> 
> With the next major release, "git push" into a branch that is
> currently checked out will be refused by default.  You can choose
> what should happen upon such a push by setting the configuration
> variable receive.denyCurrentBranch in the receiving repository.
> 
> To ease the transition plan, the receiving repository of such a
> push running this release will issue a big warning when the
> configuration variable is missing.  Please refer to:
> 
>   http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#non-bare
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/107758/focus=108007
> 
> for more details on the reason why this change is needed and the
> transition plan.
> 
> For a similar reason, "git push $there :$killed" to delete the branch
> $killed in a remote repository $there, if $killed branch is the current
> branch pointed at by its HEAD, gets a large warning.  You can choose what
> should happen upon such a push by setting the configuration variable
> receive.denyDeleteCurrent in the receiving repository.
> 
> When the user does not tell "git push" what to push, it has always
> pushed matching refs.  For some people it is unexpected, and a new
> configuration variable push.default has been introduced to allow
> changing a different default behaviour.  To advertise the new feature,
> a big warning is issued if this is not configured and a git push without
> arguments is attempted.
> 
> 	Side note: we might want to tone this down, as it does not seem
> 	likely for us to change the default behaviour when this option is
> 	not set.


Is there some sort of guide to the new best practices for handling trees 
such as git.kernel.org, where one pushes into "foo.git" directly, and 
there is no checked-out source code at all?

I've been getting the multi-line "warning: Updating the currently 
checked out branch may cause confusion" message, but ignoring it for 
now, because it does not appear to apply to my situation (no checked-out 
work tree).

Advice appreciated...

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:

> Is there some sort of guide to the new best practices for handling
> trees such as git.kernel.org, where one pushes into "foo.git"
> directly, and there is no checked-out source code at all?

I think old repositories will be helped if you add

	[core]
        	bare

to their foo.git/config files.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Jeff Garzik]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> 
>> Is there some sort of guide to the new best practices for handling
>> trees such as git.kernel.org, where one pushes into "foo.git"
>> directly, and there is no checked-out source code at all?
> 
> I think old repositories will be helped if you add
> 
> 	[core]
>         	bare
> 
> to their foo.git/config files.

Thanks.  What about cloning new repositories?  Real world example:

Local workstation has /spare/repo/cld/.git repository, with checked-out 
working tree.

I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like system, 
so my task is to

	scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git

but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to 
remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating the 
currently checked-out branch -- even though there are no checked-out 
files.  The checked-out files were not copied in the scp.

Regards,

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Jeff Garzik]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like system, 
> so my task is to
> 
>     scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git
> 
> but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to 
> remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating the 
> currently checked-out branch -- even though there are no checked-out 
> files.  The checked-out files were not copied in the scp.

IOW -- do I just edit the config for this case too, or is there some 
'git clone --bare' magic that can work across ssh, as shown above?

It is easy to clone -from- a remote, but not so easy to clone -to- a 
new, bare remote.

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Felipe Balbi]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:43:21AM +0200, ext Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> > 
> >> Is there some sort of guide to the new best practices for handling
> >> trees such as git.kernel.org, where one pushes into "foo.git"
> >> directly, and there is no checked-out source code at all?
> > 
> > I think old repositories will be helped if you add
> > 
> > 	[core]
> >         	bare
> > 
> > to their foo.git/config files.
> 
> Thanks.  What about cloning new repositories?  Real world example:
> 
> Local workstation has /spare/repo/cld/.git repository, with checked-out 
> working tree.
> 
> I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like system, 
> so my task is to
> 
> 	scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git
> 
> but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to 
> remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating the 
> currently checked-out branch -- even though there are no checked-out 
> files.  The checked-out files were not copied in the scp.

how about you create the bare repository on the kernel.org-like server
and then push cld to it ?

-- 
balbi

[ANNOUNCE] Re: GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

The 15/07/09, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> A release candidate GIT 1.6.4.rc1 is available at the usual places
> for testing:
> 
>   http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/

Could you push into kernel.org, please?

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:

> I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like
> system, so my task is to
>
> 	scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git
>
> but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to
> remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating
> the currently checked-out branch

I think "scp -r" is a wrong way to "clone", as it will copy .git/config
that is specific to your local work tree that does not apply to the
situation at remote.example.com anyway.  You do not want to push into your
local repository with a work tree you are "scp -r"ing out of, but you do
want to push into the one at remote.example.com.

Interestingly enough, we had a two separate thread about making a bare
repository out of a repository with a work tree today ;-)

	remote.example.com$ cd /pub/scm/
        remote.example.com$ git clone --bare over.there:/spare/repo/cld/.git cld.git

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Jeff Garzik]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> 
>> I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like
>> system, so my task is to
>>
>> 	scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git
>>
>> but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to
>> remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating
>> the currently checked-out branch
> 
> I think "scp -r" is a wrong way to "clone", as it will copy .git/config
> that is specific to your local work tree that does not apply to the
> situation at remote.example.com anyway.  You do not want to push into your
> local repository with a work tree you are "scp -r"ing out of, but you do
> want to push into the one at remote.example.com.
> 
> Interestingly enough, we had a two separate thread about making a bare
> repository out of a repository with a work tree today ;-)
> 
> 	remote.example.com$ cd /pub/scm/
>         remote.example.com$ git clone --bare over.there:/spare/repo/cld/.git cld.git

That direction doesn't work due to firewalls, hence the scp out /to/ 
remote.example.com.

So, will this make git happy?  :)

[starting on local machine, where I do development]
1) scp -r /spare/repo/cld remote.example.com:/tmp

2) ssh remote.example.com

3) cd /pub/scm

4) git clone --bare /tmp/cld/.git cld.git

Regards,

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Jeff Garzik]

Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:43:21AM +0200, ext Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Is there some sort of guide to the new best practices for handling
>>>> trees such as git.kernel.org, where one pushes into "foo.git"
>>>> directly, and there is no checked-out source code at all?
>>> I think old repositories will be helped if you add
>>>
>>> 	[core]
>>>         	bare
>>>
>>> to their foo.git/config files.
>> Thanks.  What about cloning new repositories?  Real world example:
>>
>> Local workstation has /spare/repo/cld/.git repository, with checked-out 
>> working tree.
>>
>> I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like system, 
>> so my task is to
>>
>> 	scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git
>>
>> but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to 
>> remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating the 
>> currently checked-out branch -- even though there are no checked-out 
>> files.  The checked-out files were not copied in the scp.
> 
> how about you create the bare repository on the kernel.org-like server
> and then push cld to it ?

You mean use 'git init-db', like this?

1) remote: cd /pub/scm ; mkdir cld.git ; GIT_DIR=cld.git git init-db

2) local: cd /spare/repo/cld ; git push --force --all \
	remote.ex.com/pub/scm/cld.git

I suppose that would work...

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Felipe Balbi]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:17:51AM +0200, ext Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:43:21AM +0200, ext Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Is there some sort of guide to the new best practices for handling
> >>>> trees such as git.kernel.org, where one pushes into "foo.git"
> >>>> directly, and there is no checked-out source code at all?
> >>> I think old repositories will be helped if you add
> >>>
> >>> 	[core]
> >>>         	bare
> >>>
> >>> to their foo.git/config files.
> >> Thanks.  What about cloning new repositories?  Real world example:
> >>
> >> Local workstation has /spare/repo/cld/.git repository, with checked-out 
> >> working tree.
> >>
> >> I want to publish this tree to the world via a *.kernel.org-like system, 
> >> so my task is to
> >>
> >> 	scp -r /spare/repo/cld/.git remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git
> >>
> >> but if I do this with scp, then future pushes to 
> >> remote.example.com:/pub/scm/cld.git emit the warning about updating the 
> >> currently checked-out branch -- even though there are no checked-out 
> >> files.  The checked-out files were not copied in the scp.
> > 
> > how about you create the bare repository on the kernel.org-like server
> > and then push cld to it ?
> 
> You mean use 'git init-db', like this?
> 
> 1) remote: cd /pub/scm ; mkdir cld.git ; GIT_DIR=cld.git git init-db
> 
> 2) local: cd /spare/repo/cld ; git push --force --all \
> 	remote.ex.com/pub/scm/cld.git
> 
> I suppose that would work...

yes, exactly :-)

-- 
balbi

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:

> That direction doesn't work due to firewalls, hence the scp out /to/
> remote.example.com.

Ah, then the "git init --bare" at remote followed by pushing -all into it,
suggested in your other subthread, would be an appropriate way.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Mike Ralphson]

2009/7/16 Tommy Nordgren <tommy.nordgren@comhem.se>:
> Testing a build of this version fails at a late stage, with an error that
> aborts testing.
> My system is Mac OS X 10.5.8
> Fragment of output at failure:
> *** t9200-git-cvsexportcommit.sh ***
> ..snip
> * FAIL 14: re-commit a removed filename which remains in CVS attic

I posted a fix (well, a sticking plaster) for this yesterday. Could
you confirm if this fixes it for you?

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/123317

The issue is intermittent on AIX (and Junio has seen it as such on
Linux too) so you may need to run the t9200... script a few times to
verify all is ok.

Thanks also for testing the rc, and the detailed report, very much
appreciated by all I'm sure.

If you can regularly build git.git snapshots, there are some scripts
at http://repo.or.cz/w/git/gitbuild.git in the platform branch, and
tags get pushed there describing the state of the build and tests on a
few 'non-core' platforms.

Cheers, Mike

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Jeff Garzik]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> 
>> That direction doesn't work due to firewalls, hence the scp out /to/
>> remote.example.com.
> 
> Ah, then the "git init --bare" at remote followed by pushing -all into it,
> suggested in your other subthread, would be an appropriate way.

Thanks!

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Tommy Nordgren]

On Jul 16, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Mike Ralphson wrote:

> 2009/7/16 Tommy Nordgren <tommy.nordgren@comhem.se>:
>> Testing a build of this version fails at a late stage, with an  
>> error that
>> aborts testing.
>> My system is Mac OS X 10.5.8
>> Fragment of output at failure:
>> *** t9200-git-cvsexportcommit.sh ***
>> ..snip
>> * FAIL 14: re-commit a removed filename which remains in CVS attic
>
> I posted a fix (well, a sticking plaster) for this yesterday. Could
> you confirm if this fixes it for you?
>
	The fix works 200 times out of 200
	The old version fails 58 times out of 200.
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/123317
>
> The issue is intermittent on AIX (and Junio has seen it as such on
> Linux too) so you may need to run the t9200... script a few times to
> verify all is ok.
>
> Thanks also for testing the rc, and the detailed report, very much
> appreciated by all I'm sure.
>
> If you can regularly build git.git snapshots, there are some scripts
> at http://repo.or.cz/w/git/gitbuild.git in the platform branch, and
> tags get pushed there describing the state of the build and tests on a
> few 'non-core' platforms.
>
> Cheers, Mike

----------------------------------
Skinheads are so tired of immigration, that they are going to move to  
a country that don't accept immigrants!
Tommy Nordgren
tommy.nordgren@comhem.se

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Nanako Shiraishi]

Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> When the user does not tell "git push" what to push, it has always
> pushed matching refs.  For some people it is unexpected, and a new
> configuration variable push.default has been introduced to allow
> changing a different default behaviour.  To advertise the new feature,
> a big warning is issued if this is not configured and a git push without
> arguments is attempted.
>
> 	Side note: we might want to tone this down, as it does not seem
> 	likely for us to change the default behaviour when this option is
> 	not set.

I thought you applied this patch from Finn Arne:

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/119173

but apparently you didn't.

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Junio C Hamano]

Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> writes:

> Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> When the user does not tell "git push" what to push, it has always
>> pushed matching refs.  For some people it is unexpected, and a new
>> configuration variable push.default has been introduced to allow
>> changing a different default behaviour.  To advertise the new feature,
>> a big warning is issued if this is not configured and a git push without
>> arguments is attempted.
>>
>> 	Side note: we might want to tone this down, as it does not seem
>> 	likely for us to change the default behaviour when this option is
>> 	not set.
>
> I thought you applied this patch from Finn Arne:
>
>     http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/119173
>
> but apparently you didn't.

I wrote that side note after googling around and found that many users
outside git community wondering what a strange way to announce a new
feature it was, and I think they are right.  I stupidly said that we
should tone the message neutral, because we might want to change the
default in the future but we are still not committed.  But the end result
is just a confusing advertisement of an optional feature.

I actually think that the right course of action at this point is this
patch instead.  We keep the default, we do not annoy the users, and people
who want to use a non-default configuration can use the feature.

-- >8 --
Subject: do not give big warning when push preference is unconfigured

If the message said "we will be changing the default in the future, so
this is to warn people who want to keep the current default what to do",
it would have made some sense, but as it stands, the message is merely an
unsolicited advertisement for a new feature which it is not helpful at
all.  Squelch it.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 builtin-push.c |   27 +--------------------------
 cache.h        |    1 -
 environment.c  |    2 +-
 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin-push.c b/builtin-push.c
index 0a0297f..1d92e22 100644
--- a/builtin-push.c
+++ b/builtin-push.c
@@ -64,36 +64,11 @@ static void setup_push_tracking(void)
 	add_refspec(refspec.buf);
 }
 
-static const char *warn_unconfigured_push_msg[] = {
-	"You did not specify any refspecs to push, and the current remote",
-	"has not configured any push refspecs. The default action in this",
-	"case is to push all matching refspecs, that is, all branches",
-	"that exist both locally and remotely will be updated.  This may",
-	"not necessarily be what you want to happen.",
-	"",
-	"You can specify what action you want to take in this case, and",
-	"avoid seeing this message again, by configuring 'push.default' to:",
-	"  'nothing'  : Do not push anything",
-	"  'matching' : Push all matching branches (default)",
-	"  'tracking' : Push the current branch to whatever it is tracking",
-	"  'current'  : Push the current branch"
-};
-
-static void warn_unconfigured_push(void)
-{
-	int i;
-	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(warn_unconfigured_push_msg); i++)
-		warning("%s", warn_unconfigured_push_msg[i]);
-}
-
 static void setup_default_push_refspecs(void)
 {
 	git_config(git_default_config, NULL);
 	switch (push_default) {
-	case PUSH_DEFAULT_UNSPECIFIED:
-		warn_unconfigured_push();
-		/* fallthrough */
-
+	default:
 	case PUSH_DEFAULT_MATCHING:
 		add_refspec(":");
 		break;
diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
index f1e5ede..c72f125 100644
--- a/cache.h
+++ b/cache.h
@@ -543,7 +543,6 @@ enum rebase_setup_type {
 };
 
 enum push_default_type {
-	PUSH_DEFAULT_UNSPECIFIED = -1,
 	PUSH_DEFAULT_NOTHING = 0,
 	PUSH_DEFAULT_MATCHING,
 	PUSH_DEFAULT_TRACKING,
diff --git a/environment.c b/environment.c
index 801a005..720f26b 100644
--- a/environment.c
+++ b/environment.c
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ enum safe_crlf safe_crlf = SAFE_CRLF_WARN;
 unsigned whitespace_rule_cfg = WS_DEFAULT_RULE;
 enum branch_track git_branch_track = BRANCH_TRACK_REMOTE;
 enum rebase_setup_type autorebase = AUTOREBASE_NEVER;
-enum push_default_type push_default = PUSH_DEFAULT_UNSPECIFIED;
+enum push_default_type push_default = PUSH_DEFAULT_MATCHING;
 #ifndef OBJECT_CREATION_MODE
 #define OBJECT_CREATION_MODE OBJECT_CREATION_USES_HARDLINKS
 #endif

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.4.rc1

[Nanako Shiraishi]

Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:

> I wrote that side note after googling around and found that many users
> outside git community wondering what a strange way to announce a new
> feature it was, and I think they are right.  I stupidly said that we
> should tone the message neutral, because we might want to change the
> default in the future but we are still not committed.  But the end result
> is just a confusing advertisement of an optional feature.
>
> I actually think that the right course of action at this point is this
> patch instead.  We keep the default, we do not annoy the users, and people
> who want to use a non-default configuration can use the feature.

An alternative approach could be to rewrite the message to say that we will change the default to something other than 'matching' as the first step, and then apply Finn Arne's patch as the second step to really force people to choose, because I thought the plan was to switch the default to something other than the matching.
But apparently I misremembered. I googled and found nobody explaining that this message is a preparatory step for such transition. The only reactions I found were the ones that said this is a strange way to advertize a new feature.
I think you are correct, and I think your patch is the right way forward.

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/