From: Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify "explicitly given" in push.default
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:00:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d8007df9-002b-6db1-4769-d6bf8c338cdf@googlemail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200125200554.GC5519@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On 25.01.20 21:05, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 08:38:04AM +0100, Bert Wesarg wrote:
>
>> thanks for this pointer. My initial pointer was the help for push.default:
>>
>> From git-config(1):
>>
>> push.default
>> Defines the action git push should take if no refspec is explicitly
>> given. Different values are well-suited for specific workflows; for
>>
>> Thus I expected, that this takes effect, when just calling 'git push'.
>
> Yeah, I agree "explicitly given" is vague there. Perhaps the patch below
> is worth doing?
>
>> What I actually want to achieve, is to track a remote branch with a
>> different name locally, but 'git push' should nevertheless push to
>> tracked remote branch.
>>
>> In my example above, befor adding the 'push.origin.push' refspec, rename the branch:
>>
>> $ git branch -m local
>> $ git push --dry-run
>> To ../bare.git
>> * [new branch] local -> local
>>
>> Is it possible that this pushes to the tracked branch automatically,
>> and because I have multiple such branches, without the use of a push
>> refspec.
>
> I think if push.default is set to "upstream" then it would do what you
> want as long as you set the upstream of "local" (e.g., by doing "git
> branch --set-upstream-to=origin/master local).
Thanks. This pushes only the current branch and honors the 'rename'.
>
> There's another way of doing this, which is when you have a "triangular"
> flow: you might pull changes from origin/master into your local branch
> X, but then push them elsewhere. Usually this would be pushing to a
> branch named X on a different remote than origin (e.g., your public fork
> of upstream on a server). And for that you can set branch.X.pushRemote.
>
> There's no corresponding triangular config branch.X.pushBranch to push
> to a different name than "X" on the remote. And while I do think it
> would be rare to want it, I could imagine a case (you have a triangular
> flow where everybody shares a central repo, but you want to push to some
> local namespace within it; usually people do that now by just making the
> namespace part of their local branch names, too).
>
> Anyway, here's the documentation patch.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: clarify "explicitly given" in push.default
>
> The documentation for push.default mentions that it is used if no
> refspec is "explicitly given". Let's clarify that giving a refspec on
> the command-line _or_ in the config will override it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> Documentation/config/push.txt | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/config/push.txt b/Documentation/config/push.txt
> index 0a0e000569..554ab44b4c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/config/push.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/config/push.txt
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> push.default::
> Defines the action `git push` should take if no refspec is
> - explicitly given. Different values are well-suited for
> + explicitly given (either on the command-line or via a
> + `remote.*.push` config option). Different values are well-suited for
> specific workflows; for instance, in a purely central workflow
> `upstream` is probably what you want. Possible values are:
>
I would rather talk about 'implicitly given', if it is via a `remote.*.push` config option:
Defines the action `git push` should take if no refspec is
- explicitly given. Different values are well-suited for
- specific workflows; for instance, in a purely central workflow
- (i.e. the fetch source is equal to the push destination),
- `upstream` is probably what you want. Possible values are:
+ neither explicitly (on the command-line) nor implicitly (via a
+ `remote.*.push` config option) given. Different values are
+ well-suited for specific workflows; for instance, in a purely
+ central workflow (i.e. the fetch source is equal to the push
+ destination), `upstream` is probably what you want. Possible
+ values are:
Bert
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-27 7:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-24 20:29 [Q] push refspec with wildcard pushes all matching branches Bert Wesarg
2020-01-25 0:38 ` Jeff King
2020-01-25 7:38 ` Bert Wesarg
2020-01-25 20:05 ` [PATCH] doc: clarify "explicitly given" in push.default Jeff King
2020-01-27 7:00 ` Bert Wesarg [this message]
2020-01-27 7:02 ` Jeff King
2020-01-27 9:25 ` Bert Wesarg
2020-01-27 23:12 ` Jeff King
2020-01-28 22:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-29 2:41 ` Jeff King
2020-01-29 5:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-29 5:53 ` Jeff King
2020-01-27 19:48 ` Bert Wesarg
2020-01-27 20:53 ` Bert Wesarg
2020-01-27 23:14 ` Jeff King
2020-01-28 20:48 ` Bert Wesarg
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=d8007df9-002b-6db1-4769-d6bf8c338cdf@googlemail.com \
--to=bert.wesarg@googlemail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--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).