Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows

["Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Decouple `simple` from `upstream` completely, and change it to mean
>>>> `current` with a safety feature: a `push` and `pull` should not be
>>>> asymmetrical in the special case of central workflows.
>>>
>>> Double negation confused my parser.  'push' and 'pull' should be
>>> kept symmetrical in central workflows?
>>
>> 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".
>
> Hmmmm....
>
>    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?
>
> Am I being clueless, or is there something else going on?

I think it is a case of the user having explicitly set push=Africa and 
pull=Europe which can't be a setting for simple symmetry.
But then again I haven't been following the fine details. (that is there 
are some defaults that allow stuff to be half set)

>
> Your "among other things", after reading it three times,
> unfortunately did not help clarify anything to me, so perhaps
> somebody other than me (or you for that matter) who is more clueful
> can help find a different way to explain the difference you are
> trying to express to me.
>
> Help, anybody?
>

Philip

[...]