From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: push.default: current vs upstream Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:13:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20120330071358.GB30656@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vd37wv77j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120329095236.GA11911@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vbonfqezs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120329221154.GA1413@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vfwcqq2dw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 30 09:14:07 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SDW2A-0007gv-Ru for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:14:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755938Ab2C3HOC (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:14:02 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:40963 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755250Ab2C3HOA (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:14:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 12007 invoked by uid 107); 30 Mar 2012 07:14:00 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:14:00 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:13:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vfwcqq2dw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:54:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > But I would withhold a decision on "upstream" versus "current" until > > those bugs are ironed out, because what people think of as "upstream" > > (today's current behavior) may not be exactly what it ends up as. > > ... > > Anyway, I didn't exactly want to re-open the upstream versus current > > debate at this point ... > > Actually I did want to ;-) An announcement "We would be switching but we > don't know what to" does not make sense. OK. Then I think we shouldn't switch to upstream, and I'm ready to debate it. :) I already posted my arguments earlier in the thread[1]. What do you think? I think we can deal with my first issue (some workflows will cause "git push" to error out without doing anything) with targeted advice for each situation. But I still worry about the "implied merge" concern I raised, and I think the only way to fix that is to have a new mode that is almost but not quite "upstream" (like the upstream-current hybrid I mentioned). Has somebody volunteered to make the necessary fixes to "push.default = upstream" in the first place? At the very least we need the fixes you mentioned in your mail[2] before it can become the default. So maybe doing those is a good first step (of course we are in release freeze, and it would be nice to settle this before v1.7.10 ships, so maybe there is not time). -Peff [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/194299 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/194295