From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:52:28 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mTthYyHRkxqK2Z3uP3uUmtQADyZt7CERY_40iQSQyzAA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vd2rgtwl3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> They're not the same thing. It is very much intentional and intended:
>> the safety net is not to "ensure that the push and pull are
>> symmetrical" (i.e. among other things, error out if
>> branch.$branch.merge is unset), but rather "ensure that the push and
>> pull are never asymmetrical".
>
> not to "ensure that the push and pull are symmetrical"
> rather "ensure that the push and pull are never asymmetrical".
>
> They still talk the same thing to me. What am I missing?
Never mind the wording then. I am proposing preventing asymmetry by
explicitly disallowing a push when $branch is different from
branch.$branch.merge, instead of shutting down immediately when
branch.$branch.merge is unset.
>> Now I'd like to question what you are labelling as "safety". What is
>> the consequence of erroring out when branch.$branch.merge is unset
>> when pushing using `upstream`?
>
> Nothing noteworthy.
>
> I wasn't suggesting to change what `upstream` does at all.
No, but I did. I just argued for a sane default for
branch.$branch.merge (the part you snipped out).
> The conclusion is that using push.default=`upstream` is meaningless
> when you are using a triangular workflow.
Yes, and I agreed with that.
> If you are using a
> centralized workflow, and if a branch does not have branch.*.merge
> configured, we do not know to which branch you are pushing it back,
> so we error out.
And I said: have a sane default.
> What I am changing from the patch you posted with the "how about
> this on top" patch back to the current behaviour is what 'simple'
> does for centralized workflow.
Yes, I know. I read the patch.
> When you are doing a centralized workflow, 'simple' was defined
Again, I'm well aware what it _was_ defined as. Was it not clear that
I argued for a change from the very first email where I posted the
patch and changed a test? Do you have a counter-argument, or is it
simply that we must respect its historical meaning?
> Now, no existing series has casted in stone the best behaviour for
> `simple` in a triangular workflow. With this series (and also with
> my fixup patch I sent last night), it is defined to act as `current`,
> but it may need a bit more safety to help new users avoid pushing
> branches they did not intend to (perhaps pushing out `current` only
> when the branch with the same name already exists at the destination?
> I dunno).
I see no reason to plan safety features in advance, especially since
we have neither branch.$branch.push nor @{push} yet.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-20 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-19 11:11 [PATCH 0/6] push.default in the triangular world Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 11:11 ` [PATCH 1/6] t/t5528-push-default: remove redundant test_config lines Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 19:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-19 11:11 ` [PATCH 2/6] config doc: rewrite push.default section Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 3:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 7:35 ` Johan Herland
2013-06-19 11:11 ` [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 2:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 10:09 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-20 19:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 20:49 ` Philip Oakley
2013-06-20 21:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 21:22 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra [this message]
2013-06-20 21:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 22:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-20 21:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-19 11:11 ` [PATCH 4/6] push: remove dead code in setup_push_upstream() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 20:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-19 11:11 ` [PATCH 5/6] t/t5528-push-default: generalize test_push_* Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 21:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-19 11:11 ` [PATCH 6/6] t/t5528-push-default: test pushdefault workflows Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-19 22:17 ` Junio C Hamano
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-24 4:33 [PATCH 0/6] Reroll of rr/triangular-push-fix Junio C Hamano
2013-06-24 4:33 ` [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows Junio C Hamano
2013-06-24 6:58 ` Johan Herland
2013-06-24 7:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-24 7:46 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-24 8:48 ` Johan Herland
2013-06-24 14:13 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-24 7:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-24 8:48 ` Johan Herland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CALkWK0mTthYyHRkxqK2Z3uP3uUmtQADyZt7CERY_40iQSQyzAA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).