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 11:13:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5E12A5.6030701@xiplink.com> References: <1331281886-11667-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> <1331288715.21444.38.camel@beez.lab.cmartin.tk> <4F5A4C45.7070406@xiplink.com> <4F5AF1A8.4050604@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FybG9zIE1hcnTDrW4gTmlldG8=?= , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 12 16:13:48 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 1S76wW-0003ra-5s for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:13:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755780Ab2CLPNo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:13:44 -0400 Received: from smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com ([67.192.241.182]:37945 "EHLO smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755739Ab2CLPNn (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:13:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id F104581B1; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:13:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp8.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 4F03080B6; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:13:42 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 In-Reply-To: <4F5AF1A8.4050604@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 12-03-10 01:16 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > I propose that the default should be even stricter: like "current", it > would push to an branch with the same name as the current local branch, > *but only if that branch already exists on the remote*. It would only > be possible to create a new branch on the remote by calling "git push" > with an explicit branch argument. I believe that such a policy would do > the right thing in the cases where the "right thing" is pretty > unambiguous, and would require a user decision in other cases. I haven't thought it through very deeply, but at first glance this seems like reasonable default behaviour to me. M.