Re: push.default: current vs upstream

In message <CA+7g9JxK5DHj3vbdGgF2dEJxvn=_ZfjAv7Y+AL_P-aO1FVB6-w@mail.gmail.com>, Nathan Gray writes:

    If a user does some work on his new "features/frobnitz" branch and
    does a "git push" only to find that his work has been committed to the
    company's master branch he will be confused, frustrated, and publicly
    embarrassed.  He then has to apologize and figure out how to revert
    the changes.  I really don't see any scenario where that user ends up
    saying "oh yeah, I guess git was right and I was wrong."

When working with a single remote, I tend to agree with you (though since I also think receive.denyDeletes should be on by default for shared repos the public humiliation of creating a branch when you did not mean to might still exist but of course it will be less damaging to others) . However, tracking really comes into its own when working with multiple remotes. Is creating a stumbling block between naïve use and more sophisticated use really necessary?

However, the current message for this use case could seem to be tweaked to take care of this:

$ git branch BB origin/B Branch BB set up to track remote branch B from origin.

Add "If you push your changes will go there." And "See git branch --upstream to modify both settings"

This provides the power of tracking with smaller possibility of the type of embarrassment you envision.

					-Seth Robertson