From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Schuberth Subject: Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push? Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:52:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4F6612E3.5040600@gmail.com> References: <7v7gyjersg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: fREW Schmidt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 18 17:53:12 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 1S9JLz-0004gw-8F for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:53:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755605Ab2CRQxF (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:53:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:61309 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755557Ab2CRQxD (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:53:03 -0400 Received: by wibhj6 with SMTP id hj6so2885751wib.1 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:53:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:newsgroups:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7eI3GskXCibf5yHgB3T7tDZMwRMyPNpTmuIy6FVdb1s=; b=mhn+YGY6ETclymalEQNwg46nzBiqJFlDkpVzczIm2hUjiAXhU0nNcMQy7+LHxCF7gg FnVaItuDOP/dl9RlC1bXIn5D9XXobGPFNWtLjr5cdzxagS6IzRukVBJzuRTd/eDBWxdL aaA0GUCFS5ZcvCCMOQuQf+Ug8uhrk5jNgIkXSg2dCD3DKX5VB0779zM/VIWBbLDeVG1y ugbb0Fl4KWG1dNJbbBn1umL6VgczqDWEAHgZz8lThE7dAAV0VQ7Sdk/b1xsZ2jQk6mL2 iWeVUDhjTrohnB+KLvK2k/SN3t4reroR/ejohNqQMcZnTEouaK5zwJXC1VzKrNWtfwNb M7Lw== Received: by 10.180.102.129 with SMTP id fo1mr13406181wib.6.1332089582833; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (p5DDB00EA.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.219.0.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ff2sm29159990wib.9.2012.03.18.09.53.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.git In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 17.03.2012 19:43, fREW Schmidt wrote: > its tracking branch only. That leaves very little room for surprises > and mistakes (the one exception being git push after git checkout -b > new-branch origin/master.) That's exactly why I'd prefer "current" instead of "upstream" as the default behavior, as it even causes no surprises in the checkout -b case, IMHO. I believe the most common workflow for the large number of git users who are no integrators / maintainers is to start a topic branch from master and then work on that topic branch until it gets merged. In order to test the topic branch on other platforms or make it available to others, it's a common operation to push the topic branch to a branch of the same name instead of the tracking branch. That's why I believe "current" is both the setting that matches the workflow of most git users and is the setting that really causes the least surprises (not least because it's straight forward what the name of the pushed branch would be, as it's the current branch's name; if you don't know the upstream branch's name out of your head, you'd have to look it up to know). -- Sebastian Schuberth