From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] push: start warning upcoming default change for push.default Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:10:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5E11EF.501@xiplink.com> References: <1kgpkt9.lt61vy108h530M%lists@haller-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Mart=EDn_Nieto?= , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Stefan Haller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 12 16:11:23 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 1S76u9-0002Kk-RG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:11:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755856Ab2CLPKo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:10:44 -0400 Received: from smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com ([67.192.241.182]:55531 "EHLO smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755724Ab2CLPKk (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:10:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 145CD802E; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:10:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp8.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 6902B80B6; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:10:39 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 In-Reply-To: <1kgpkt9.lt61vy108h530M%lists@haller-berlin.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 12-03-09 04:08 PM, Stefan Haller wrote: > > But coming back to the subject of push.default: in our environment, > "upstream" is the only default that is useful with the current behaviour > of git. I'm not at all surprised -- everyone works differently. This is why the default is configurable in the first place. When it comes to what git should do by default, I think it's a bit pointless to have environment-vs-environment discussions. No matter how many people join such a discussion on this list, it can only give us hints to which default would best serve git's users. Maybe the git survey can tell us what workflows are most popular, but even that may not indicate the best default behaviour. The point I was trying to make in my previous message is that "upstream" seems like the least dangerous default behaviour. Yes, it does not match everyone's workflow. But it seems the least likely to shoot the feet off of people who have yet to figure out their workflow at all. M.