Re: [RFC] rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified

From: Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org>
Date: Nov 15, 2010, 23:16 UTC
Message-ID: <1DFC8289-B208-412D-85A2-442714B19861@sb.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=sEVHTqWqcdztcEv6kTZgscVYZWr-N0SBMRwvc@mail.gmail.com>

On Nov 15, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>> 
>>> With 'git pull --rebase', the user can configure the upstream repository
>>> to fetch from and reference to rebase against if none is specified on
>>> the command line.
>>> 
>>> However, if, instead of 'git pull --rebase', the user were to do 'git
>>> fetch' followed by 'git rebase', the upstream branch would need to be
>>> specified on the command line. This patch teaches 'git rebase' to
>>> default to the same configured upstream ref as 'git pull --rebase'
>>> uses.
>> 
>> What happens if one were to do `git fetch origin some_other_branch`
>> followed by `git rebase`?
> 
> Good question. What would happen with my patch is that you would rebase
> against your configured uptream.
> 
> The requirement to provide the upstream for 'git rebase', but not for
> 'git pull' was my inspiration, but maybe I should not mention that it
> the commit message. So maybe my motivation is flawed, but ignoring that,
> do you think it is sensible to default to '@{upstream}'?

I personally am not in favor of providing a default at all, but if we must, then @{upstream} is a sensible one. I just think suggesting that this allows you to split up `git pull --rebase` into `git fetch + git rebase` may be confusing unless you make it clear that this only applies to an invocation of `git pull --rebase` that names no branches.

-Kevin Ballard