Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp

From: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
Date: Nov 4, 2008, 18:10 UTC
Message-ID: <1225822231.6722.3.camel@maia.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20081104091800.GB24100@dpotapov.dyndns.org>

On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:18 +0300, Dmitry Potapov wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> > I can see that some people want this behaviour by default; but to me
> > "push the current branch back to where it came from" seems like far more
> > a rational default for at least 90% of users.
> 
> I think it depends on one's workflow. If you use a centralized workflow
> as with CVS then yes, 90% cases you want to push the current branch. On
> the other hand, if people push their changes to the server only for
> review, it means that accidentally pushing more than one intended is not
> a big deal.

Perhaps not, but it was still unintended. I really can't understand the opposition to making this command make many people less angry at it.

Show 5 quoted lines

>  The only one who does publishing to the official repository
> is the maintainer, and the maintainer is most likely to run some tests
> after merging all changes, which takes some time. So, it is rarely push
> the current branch, it is usually the branch that has been tested, so
> the name of the branch should be specified explicitly anyway.

Why is that relevant? That person can still use the explicit version of the command.

Sam.