From: Sam Vilain Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:10:31 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp 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: > > 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. > 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.