From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Prohaska Subject: Re: git push (mis ?)behavior Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:24:23 +0200 Message-ID: <04A74C2E-272B-4F5C-9254-11C9244091AF@zib.de> References: <20071003073554.GA8110@artemis.corp> <83C5420A-528A-43F0-AF8C-699B85B7AD95@wincent.com> <20071003104943.GA3017@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20071003160731.GA7113@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20071003162816.GA17403@artemis.corp> <20071003170241.GA7571@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <717D7260-CE23-4397-8B13-264309094423@zib.de> <204B0DD6-54B0-4436-AFC6-ABDA4510E5D5@wincent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin , Pierre Habouzit , Miles Bader , Junio C Hamano , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karl_Hasselstr=F6m?= To: Wincent Colaiuta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 04 18:23:45 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IdTU1-0004xY-PG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:23:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757912AbXJDQXV (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:23:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758568AbXJDQXV (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:23:21 -0400 Received: from mailer.zib.de ([130.73.108.11]:57297 "EHLO mailer.zib.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757801AbXJDQXU (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:23:20 -0400 Received: from mailsrv2.zib.de (sc2.zib.de [130.73.108.31]) by mailer.zib.de (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l94GMp1r025649; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:22:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [130.73.68.185] (cougar.zib.de [130.73.68.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailsrv2.zib.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l94GMohT027235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:22:50 +0200 (MEST) In-Reply-To: <204B0DD6-54B0-4436-AFC6-ABDA4510E5D5@wincent.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Oct 4, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: >> I do not find it very intuitive to mangle the push behaviour into the >> naming of the local branch. I think it would be a good idea if the >> two commands above would either both setup a pull/push relation >> or both would setup a pull-only relation. If pull-only would be the >> default another switch could be provided to establish a pull/push >> relation, like >> >> git checkout --track --push -b mynext origin/next >> >> Comments? > > Interesting. To me that doesn't seem to be intuitive at all. I > actually think it makes a lot of sense for the relationship to be > "one way" in the absence of matching ref names. > > Basically, the distributed model works because you know that if you > have the same commit hash in two repositories you're talking about > the same thing. Same thing goes for branches; if you expect to be > able to push back upstream then it's natural to expect that that > should only work if you have the same ref name to identify the > "what" that you're actually pushing to. But how do multiple remotes fit into your model? Maybe my example above was a bit to simple. How about this one: git checkout --track --push -b masterA remoteA/master git checkout --track --push -b masterB remoteB/master I understand what it means because I devised my local naming model. The model could look totally wrong to you, but it's in my repository. You'd never see it. But if it fits my mental model, why should git enforce its master-means-always-master-and-must-not-be-named-differently model? Steffen