From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wincent Colaiuta Subject: Re: git push (mis ?)behavior Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:49:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20071003073554.GA8110@artemis.corp> <83C5420A-528A-43F0-AF8C-699B85B7AD95@wincent.com> <20071003104943.GA3017@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20071003160731.GA7113@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <20071003162816.GA17403@artemis.corp> <20071003170241.GA7571@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <717D7260-CE23-4397-8B13-264309094423@zib.de> <204B0DD6-54B0-4436-AFC6-ABDA4510E5D5@wincent.com> <04A74C2E-272B-4F5C-9254-11C9244091AF@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin , Pierre Habouzit , Miles Bader , Junio C Hamano , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karl_Hasselstr=F6m?= To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 04 19:51:09 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 1IdUqc-00013j-1d for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:50:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758148AbXJDRuo convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:50:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758138AbXJDRuo (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:50:44 -0400 Received: from wincent.com ([72.3.236.74]:51482 "EHLO s69819.wincent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757533AbXJDRun convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:50:43 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.129] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by s69819.wincent.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l94HnWoE022933; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:49:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <04A74C2E-272B-4F5C-9254-11C9244091AF@zib.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: El 4/10/2007, a las 18:24, Steffen Prohaska escribi=F3: > On Oct 4, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > >>> I do not find it very intuitive to mangle the push behaviour into =20 >>> the >>> naming of the local branch. I think it would be a good idea if the >>> two commands above would either both setup a pull/push relation >>> or both would setup a pull-only relation. If pull-only would be the >>> default another switch could be provided to establish a pull/push >>> relation, like >>> >>> git checkout --track --push -b mynext origin/next >>> >>> Comments? >> >> Interesting. To me that doesn't seem to be intuitive at all. I =20 >> actually think it makes a lot of sense for the relationship to be =20 >> "one way" in the absence of matching ref names. >> >> Basically, the distributed model works because you know that if =20 >> you have the same commit hash in two repositories you're talking =20 >> about the same thing. Same thing goes for branches; if you expect =20 >> to be able to push back upstream then it's natural to expect that =20 >> that should only work if you have the same ref name to identify =20 >> the "what" that you're actually pushing to. > > But how do multiple remotes fit into your model? Maybe my example > above was a bit to simple. How about this one: > > git checkout --track --push -b masterA remoteA/master > git checkout --track --push -b masterB remoteB/master > > I understand what it means because I devised my local naming model. > The model could look totally wrong to you, but it's in my repository. > You'd never see it. But if it fits my mental model, why should git > enforce its master-means-always-master-and-must-not-be-named-=20 > differently > model? I think I'll leave it up to someone who knows a bit more than me to =20 answer that one... It's not a use case I've ever sought out as I =20 usually only work with one upstream remote. Sorry I don't have =20 anything intelligent to add. Cheers, Wincent