Re: [PATCH v2] New config push.default to decide default behavior for push

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Finn Arne Gangstad <finnag@pvv.org> writes:

> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 09:55:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>> As some people still seem to object to the change of default (and that
>> includes 20-30% of myself), we may end up deciding not to switch the
>> default after all, but even in that case, applying the first half would
>> benefit people who would want different behaviour.
>
> I think the suggested new default is a lot safer then the current
> one. A default of "nothing" will print a nice message if you end up
> pushing nothing, which you will fix in a heartbeat with a single git
> config command.
>
> If you erroneously push one or more branches however, cleanup might
> end up being very complicated. Many pushable repos are set up with
> disallowing non-fast-forward pushes, so it may require intervention by
> someone else to clean up, and by then someone else have already
> fetched the bad push.

I think traditionalists who do not like changing the default already know
these, though.  I would not object to the push.default as a _choice_.

In fact, sourceforge.jp (they added git support late last year, and I keep
a secondary public repository just like my alt-git.git at repo.or.cz) is
one of such places.  It seems to forbid non fast-forward pushes, and that
is why I have been pushing only maint and master there.  It does allow
deletion, and I could push deletion followed by creation in two stages,
i.e. "git push sfjp :pu && git push sfjp pu", but I did not bother.

In a later part of the message you are responding to (but did not quote),
I was agreeing with all of what you wrote here, and even more ;-) Notice
the "tradeoff does not look too bad to me" part.

Your new [1/2] gives the choice without advertisement, and _if_ you remove
or tone down "The default may change in the future" from [2/2], it becomes
purely an advertisement of the feature to help people from burning
themselves.  I do not see anything a sane traditionist would object to at
that point, and I thought we could even squash the two into one commit
(which was what I meant by "I am inclined to change my mind" in the
message you are responding to).