Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> What happens if I want to push to 'refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno'?
>>
>> You would weigh pros-and-cons of supporting such a "single branch
>> only" special case, and add a branch level override, and if the
>> benefit outweighs the cost of complexity, design and implement it.
>>
>> The push.default setting is to make sure we have a simple mechanism
>> to cover more common cases, and my suspicion is what 'current' gives
>> us is already there without the need for 'single'.
>
> Actually, I suspect that you shouldn't even need to do that
> pros-and-cons analysis, because the 'single' thing should cover as a
> natural extension of the existing infrastructure.  You should only
> need to have something like this:
>
>         [remote "there"]
>                 url = ... were you push ...
>                 push = refs/heads/frotz:refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno
>                 push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/topics/*
>
> Without the 'single', your 'frotz' will be pushed to update
> heads/topics/frotz-for-juno, not heads/topics/frotz, because the
> exact refspec match will prevent it from matched twice by the
> wildcarded one.  The imagined 'single' mode would just limit the
> push to the current branch, so it would end up pushing to the branch
> you want to update, without sending an extra copy to the same name.

And would 'git branch --set-downstream-to github/frotz-for-juno' do
that? If not it's basically useless for 99% of the users who never
fiddle with push refspecs.

-- 
Felipe Contreras