From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wincent Colaiuta Subject: Re: git push (mis ?)behavior Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:47:40 +0200 Message-ID: <0F838789-B02F-4081-8C75-ED06B551D4C0@wincent.com> References: <20070927130447.GH10289@artemis.corp> <7v3awzvrpr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , Pierre Habouzit , git@vger.kernel.org To: Miles Bader X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 03 08:48:02 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 1Icy1V-0005UX-9n for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:47:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751851AbXJCGrt convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:47:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751539AbXJCGrt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:47:49 -0400 Received: from wincent.com ([72.3.236.74]:46293 "EHLO s69819.wincent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbXJCGrt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:47:49 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.129] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by s69819.wincent.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l936lgfU010155; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:47:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: El 3/10/2007, a las 7:10, Miles Bader escribi=F3: > Junio C Hamano writes: >> I think it is sensible to have an option to make it push only the >> current branch. I am not sure if it is sensible to make that the >> default. > > I really like the current default, it matches my mental model well: = I > generally use "push" to mean "synchronize the remote repository =20 > with my > current one"; if multiple branches have changed, I want those changes > propagated too. > > I think changing it would be a bad idea, it just seems a pointlessly > incompatible change. The reasons I've seen offered on this thread fo= r > changing the default seem pretty weak, e.g., "it's more conservative" > (but more annoying) It could be more annoying for some, yet a life saver for others. So =20 before changing the default obviously we would need to get a clear =20 idea of whether or not the majority would approve of such a move. =20 Such differences of opinion would be easily accommodated if the =20 default behaviour were made configurable. That way everyone can have =20 the behaviour they want. Cheers, Wincent PS. I'm the one who mentioned SVK, but I didn't offer it as a reason =20 to justify the change (I agree, more than "weak" it's not really any =20 reason at all); I just mentioned to indicate why it is that the =20 current behaviour caught me off guard.