Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] doc: git-push: clarify "what to push"

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

"Julia Evans" <julia@jvns.ca> writes:

> As I understand it, with push.default=simple, the reason you need to set
> the upstream is not to tell Git what branch to update (since Git will not
> even let you set the upstream to a branch with a different name), but
> instead it's more of a safety check to prevent you from accidentally
> pushing a branch that you didn't mean to. Is that wrong?

Your understanding is correct, but when push.default=simple
castrates "git push", and you are on branch 'foo', it is dubious to
argue that "git push" _knows_ it will be pushed to 'foo' at origin.

It is very much conditional---what Git is being told is that the
push would be made there only if branch.foo.{remote,merge} were set
up to push these.  If the setting is not there, then Git does not
know where to push to.

I agree with you that setting these configurations is *not* about
letting Git know.  It is about lifting that conditional that
prevents Git from knowing where to push to.

> But I'm not sure it's true in this case: we just said above that
> "The default is `push.default=simple`, which will push to a branch with
> the same name as the current branch."

So I think this simplified statement is what causes confusion.  It
says push.default=simple will push to such and such place, but that
is not true.  push.default=simple only means that no settings that
points a branch with different name as your upstream is accepted.
And configured upstream is what determines what branch at what
remote is updated with a push.

You can tell the same story about push.default=upstream; configured
upstream is what determines what branch at what remote is updated in
this case, too, and it won't push out if you do not have your
upstream configured.