push.default: current vs upstream
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 30, 2012, 07:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120330071358.GB30656@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vfwcqq2dw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:54:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > But I would withhold a decision on "upstream" versus "current" until > > those bugs are ironed out, because what people think of as "upstream" > > (today's current behavior) may not be exactly what it ends up as. > > ... > > Anyway, I didn't exactly want to re-open the upstream versus current > > debate at this point ... > > Actually I did want to ;-) An announcement "We would be switching but we > don't know what to" does not make sense.
OK. Then I think we shouldn't switch to upstream, and I'm ready to debate it. :) I already posted my arguments earlier in the thread[1]. What do you think?
I think we can deal with my first issue (some workflows will cause "git push" to error out without doing anything) with targeted advice for each situation. But I still worry about the "implied merge" concern I raised, and I think the only way to fix that is to have a new mode that is almost but not quite "upstream" (like the upstream-current hybrid I mentioned).
Has somebody volunteered to make the necessary fixes to "push.default = upstream" in the first place? At the very least we need the fixes you mentioned in your mail[2] before it can become the default. So maybe doing those is a good first step (of course we are in release freeze, and it would be nice to settle this before v1.7.10 ships, so maybe there is not time).
-Peff
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/194299
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/194295