[PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

Change an example push added in b55e677522 ("push: introduce new
push.default mode "simple"", 2012-04-24) to always mean the same thing
whether the current setting happens to be "simple" or not.

This error is only emitted under "simple", but message is explaining
to the user that they can get two sorts of different behaviors by
these two invocations.

Let's use "git push <remote> HEAD" which always means push the current
branch name to that remote, instead of "git push <remote>
<current-branch-name>" which will do that under "simple", but is not
guaranteed to do under "upstream".

Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
---
 builtin/push.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/push.c b/builtin/push.c
index d09a42062c..8bb8a0849b 100644
--- a/builtin/push.c
+++ b/builtin/push.c
@@ -173,10 +173,10 @@ static NORETURN int die_push_simple(struct branch *branch, struct remote *remote
 	      "\n"
 	      "To push to the branch of the same name on the remote, use\n"
 	      "\n"
-	      "    git push %s %s\n"
+	      "    git push %s HEAD\n"
 	      "%s"),
 	    remote->name, short_upstream,
-	    remote->name, branch->name, advice_maybe);
+	    remote->name, advice_maybe);
 }
 
 static const char message_detached_head_die[] =
-- 
2.19.1.1182.g4ecb1133ce

Re: [PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[Matthieu Moy]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's use "git push <remote> HEAD" which always means push the current
> branch name to that remote, instead of "git push <remote>
> <current-branch-name>" which will do that under "simple", but is not
> guaranteed to do under "upstream".

Probably a good idea indeed.

One potential objection though: I think many people know

  git push origin master

(not that they necessarily understand it, but I've seen many people talking
or asking questions about what "origin master" is)

This "git push origin HEAD" is IMHO less common. It may confuse users.
Or users may learn it and be happy thanks to your message. I don't know.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
https://matthieu-moy.fr/

Re: [PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Tue, Nov 13 2018, Matthieu Moy wrote:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's use "git push <remote> HEAD" which always means push the current
>> branch name to that remote, instead of "git push <remote>
>> <current-branch-name>" which will do that under "simple", but is not
>> guaranteed to do under "upstream".
>
> Probably a good idea indeed.
>
> One potential objection though: I think many people know
>
>   git push origin master
>
> (not that they necessarily understand it, but I've seen many people talking
> or asking questions about what "origin master" is)
>
> This "git push origin HEAD" is IMHO less common. It may confuse users.
> Or users may learn it and be happy thanks to your message. I don't know.

I was hoping for the latter. I'm slightly embarrassed to say that for
the entire time I've been using git I've been doing:

    # on branch 'topic'
    git push origin topic:topic

Where 'topic' is a tracking branch of 'origin/master' (I use
push.default=upstream). I only recently discovered that I could push to
'HEAD" to do the same thing. So one ulterior motive is to make that more
prominent.

I was going to add a hint on such invocations saying "you can just use
HEAD", but have not found the relevant code yet after some brief
searching...

Re: [PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[Junio C Hamano]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

>> This "git push origin HEAD" is IMHO less common. It may confuse users.
>> Or users may learn it and be happy thanks to your message. I don't know.
>
> I was hoping for the latter. I'm slightly embarrassed to say that for
> the entire time I've been using git I've been doing:
>
>     # on branch 'topic'
>     git push origin topic:topic
>
> Where 'topic' is a tracking branch of 'origin/master' (I use
> push.default=upstream). I only recently discovered that I could push to
> 'HEAD" to do the same thing. So one ulterior motive is to make that more
> prominent.

Personally I do not think you should feel embarrassed at all.  I
didn't know it myself, and I do not recall designing such a
behaviour, so I would not be surprised if it is merely what the code
right now happens to do.  FWIW, I would have expected that a "git
push origin HEAD" when HEAD is a symref to a branch 'x' would behave
as if "git push origin x" were given, going through the usual
simple/upstream/matching etc. dance.

Do we consider the current behaviour useful?  Is it documented
already and widely known?  If the answers are yes/no, of course we
should document it, but if they are no/no, it may not be a bad idea
to deprecate it and replace it with a saner version (i.e. deref HEAD
to branch name and behave the same way as pushing that branch) over
time.

Re: [PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[Matthieu Moy]

"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Where 'topic' is a tracking branch of 'origin/master' (I use
> > push.default=upstream). I only recently discovered that I could push to
> > 'HEAD" to do the same thing. So one ulterior motive is to make that more
> > prominent.
[...]
> Do we consider the current behaviour useful? Is it documented

Yes, since 1750783 (Documentation: more git push examples, 2009-01-26).

It may be an accident that the doc says "to the same name on the
remote." since it predates the introduction of push.default, but it
does say so and it's the actual behavior.

> already and widely known?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14031970/git-push-current-branch-shortcut

458 votes for the answer suggesting it.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
https://matthieu-moy.fr/

Re: [PATCH] push: change needlessly ambiguous example in error

[Junio C Hamano]

Matthieu Moy <git@matthieu-moy.fr> writes:

> "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > Where 'topic' is a tracking branch of 'origin/master' (I use
>> > push.default=upstream). I only recently discovered that I could push to
>> > 'HEAD" to do the same thing. So one ulterior motive is to make that more
>> > prominent.
> [...]
>> Do we consider the current behaviour useful? Is it documented
>
> Yes, since 1750783 (Documentation: more git push examples, 2009-01-26).
>
> It may be an accident that the doc says "to the same name on the
> remote." since it predates the introduction of push.default, but it
> does say so and it's the actual behavior.
>
>> already and widely known?
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14031970/git-push-current-branch-shortcut
>
> 458 votes for the answer suggesting it.

OK, that probably is good enough reason to keep the current
behaviour and convince ourselves that there is nothing that needs to
be done further on this topic.

Thanks.