From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wincent Colaiuta Subject: Re: git push (mis ?)behavior Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:38:51 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20070927130447.GH10289@artemis.corp> <7v3awzvrpr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> 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: Pierre Habouzit , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 28 14:41:16 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 1IbF9e-0001Oy-A4 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:41:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752401AbXI1MlH convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:41:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752904AbXI1MlH (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:41:07 -0400 Received: from wincent.com ([72.3.236.74]:48788 "EHLO s69819.wincent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752188AbXI1MlG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:41:06 -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 l8SCcrE3013233; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:38:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7v3awzvrpr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> 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 27/9/2007, a las 21:22, Junio C Hamano escribi=F3: > What you would want to change is the fallback behaviour for > unconfigured "remote..push". 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 (and > introduce --matching option to get the current behaviour) at > this point in 1.5.X series, but from the general usability point > of view, I would not object to demote 'matching' to optional and > make 'current only' the default in 1.6.X or later. > > Thoughts? I'd certainly welcome this change for two reasons: 1. It makes the behaviour more conservative (that is, harder to do =20 something destructive and irreversible) by using the more limited =20 scope by default. If you make a mistake and see that you really meant =20 to push all matching branches then you can just do the push again =20 with that switch; compare that to the situation now where if you =20 accidentally push all matching branches when you only wanted to push =20 the current branch then there's no way for you to "unpush". 2. Mental baggage from working with SVK (where "push" means merge =20 changes back to the branch the current branch previously branched =20 from, and "pull" means merge changes into the current branch from the =20 branch you previously branched from). At least for me and I suspect =20 for many others the "current only" default in 1.6 or latter would be =20 less "surprising" than the current behaviour can be. Cheers, Wincent