From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git push (mis ?)behavior Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:39:13 -0700 Message-ID: <7v7im4hi4e.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070927130447.GH10289@artemis.corp> <7v3awzvrpr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pierre Habouzit , git@vger.kernel.org To: Miles Bader X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 03 07:39:51 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 1IcwxG-0005Rj-Sm for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:39:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752007AbXJCFjW (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:39:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752015AbXJCFjW (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:39:22 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:36780 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbXJCFjV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:39:21 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114E1140AAE; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:39:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1C913EE84; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:39:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:10:09 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Miles Bader writes: > 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 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 for > changing the default seem pretty weak, e.g., "it's more conservative" > (but more annoying), and "it's more like SVK" (who cares?). Usually we hear people complain louder on the list. People who are happy with the existing behaviour tend to be quiet, and we should be really careful not to break things for silent majority. I try to stay fairly conservative, often more conservative than what I would like to be myself, for this exact reason.