Re: basic question about push

[Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:04:59AM +0000, Russ Paielli wrote:
>
>> warning: updating the current branch
>> [...]
>> What does this mean in English? And what is the correct way to transfer my
>> revisions from my home computer to my work computer? Thanks.
>
> It means your workflow will cause problems as the pusher magically
> changes your repository's concept of "the latest commit" behind the
> pushee's back. The workflow you want is described here:
>
>  http://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#push-is-reverse-of-fetch

Aside, and I think we've discussed this before, but I wonder if it
would make sense to:

a) Add an option to clone such as "-p [<name>] | --push-as[=<name>]"
where <name> defaults to $(uname -n | cut -f1 -d.) This would setup
the cloned repo with a push refspec
"+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/<name>/*". e.g.:

$ git clone -o host1 -p host2 ssh://host1/~/repo.git
$ cat repo/.git/config
...
[remote "host1"]
	url = ssh://host1/~/repo.git
	fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/host1/*
	push = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/host2/*

b) The controversial part: make this option the default the default
when cloning from a non-bare repo. There would need to be some way to
turn it off.

Of course, I'm not sure this would be any less confusing for users.
Would they wonder why they have to merge to see their pushed changes
reflected on the pushed-to repo?

It does nicely make push symmetric to fetch between two non-bare repos
though, and I think maybe that makes more sense.

j.