Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch

From: Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net>
Date: Oct 30, 2008, 15:04 UTC
Message-ID: <2008-10-30-16-04-08+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
In-Reply-To: <4909CABD.1040708@op5.se>

* Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> [2008-10-30 15:54:53 +0100]

Show 5 quoted lines

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't my suggestion of not trying to
> push (even matching) branches that haven't been updated since we last
> fetched from the remote do exactly the same thing for your particular
> use-case, but without syntax change and all the annoying minor parts
> that it entails?

Not exactly. I often do some work on a branch which does not mandate a topic branch and have to switch branches to fix a bug for example. This would continue to push unterminated changes as well.

Typical use case, which happens (to me) quite frequently:

  % git checkout master
  [start new feature, estimated implementation time 15 minutes]
  % git commit -m "Reorganize foobar in previous of xyzzy."
    (note that I'm not sure that I will keep it, I'll know that later
    when my next commit is ready, maybe in 10 minutes, no need for
    a topic branch)
  [mail from a customer, "I noticed some strange behaviour here" --
   let's fix it]
  % git checkout 2.0-beta1-release-candidate
  [fix strange behaviour and add new test]
  [test locally]
  % git commit -m "Fix strange behaviour baz."
  % git push
    (so that it goes to the buildfarm for QA testing)

Argh, "master" has been pushed as well. Ok, I could have done

  % git branch
    (because I know I am on the right branch but do not necessarily
     remember its full name all the time)
  % git push origin 2.0-beta1-release-candidate

or I could have started a topic branch, but I often push 2 or 3 commits at a time instead, the first one being a refactoring of existing code to ease the subsequent one.

>From what I have seen, people I am working with often have the

same workflow (do not systematically start a topic branch when in active development mode)

Show 6 quoted lines

> Define "many". Perhaps as often as 2-3 times per day. Not very often,
> but frequent enough that I definitely want some short sweet way of
> doing it. OTOH, I also find the "rejected" messages annoying, and I
> definitely feel one could do something about them. However, it's my
> birthday today and I plan on being far too drunk/hungover the entire
> weekend for me to take any actions in that direction.

Happy birthday :)