From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: 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 09:07:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <516BA732.4080405@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vppxw335o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 4/15/2013 5:04, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ... In my proposal, the
>> precedence order branch.<name>.pushremote, remote.pushdefault,
>> branch.<name>.remote, remote.default, origin, remains the same: we
>> just want to change which branch that <name> refers to.
>
> That "changing the meaning of <name>" in the middle, and doing so
> will be confusing to the users, is exactly the issue, isn't it?
>
>> In my
>> opinion, it is a much more subtle change than the entirely new
>> precedence order that you're inventing.
>
> Adding "--" has never been my itch. I just brought it up out of thin
> air as a possible alternative that is less confusing.
User says:
git push -- master docs release
Then git pushes the three branches to three different upstreams. You find
that confusing. Do I understanding correctly so far?
If I were a push.default=(simple|upstream) type, then I would be totally
aware that there are three different upstreams involved because I had had
to configure them manually and explicitly (correct?), and I would be
completely surprised if the push would *not* go to three different upstreams.
Just my 2 cents. (But I'm a traditional "matching" type, so take this with
a grain of salt. Or I may be missing the point of this thread, as I
haven't followed closely.)
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-15 7:10 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 [this message]
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
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=516BA732.4080405@viscovery.net \
--to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--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).