push.default, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2009, #04; Sat, 14)

From: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2009, 21:30 UTC
Message-ID: <20090318063053.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903171125420.6393@intel-tinevez-2-302>

Quoting Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * fg/push-default (Wed Mar 11 23:01:45 2009 +0100) 1 commit
>>  - New config push.default to decide default behavior for push
>> 
>> Replaced the old series with the first step to allow a smooth 
>> transition. Some might argue that this should not give any warning but 
>> just give users this new configuration to play with first, and after we 
>> know we are going to switch default some day, start the warning.
>
> IIRC Steffen posted a patch series earlier, where he initialized 
> remote.origin.push upon clone (I am not sure if he provided a 
> corresponding patch for checkout --track), but personally, I think that 
> would be nicer than having a push.default.

Isn't recent trend to avoid such inconsistency between behavior in an existing repository and behavior in a newly created repository? For example, Jeff calls such inconsistency in

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/100339/focus=100433

as "this breaks in my repo, but when I make a test repo it works". Junio even called it 'madness' (^_^;)

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/