Re: push.default: current vs upstream
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 12, 2012, 22:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120412221110.GA22426@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vlim04ou1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:33:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org> writes:
>
> > So if the problem is that the documentation cues the reader to think
> > about upstreams but not to think about downstreams, the solution is to
> > find excuses to talk more about downstreams. As far as I'm concerned
> > @{upstream} means "the place that commits come from when I `git pull`",
> > so it makes perfect sense to me that @{downstream} would mean "the place
> > commits go to when I `git push`".
>
> In a separate message I completely misunderstood what you meant by
> "downstream".Yeah, I also took it to mean that the "downstream" of your "upstream" would be where you started (though as you mentioned, it is not 1-to-1, so that would not work anyway).
But this:
Show 16 quoted lines
> If you had something like this: > > [remote "origin"] > url = ... > [remote "destination"] > pushURL = ... > > [branch "topic"] > remote = origin > merge = refs/heads/master > pushRemote = destination # new > push = refs/heads/topic # new > > you could express that asymmetric layout in a natural way. When you say > "git push" while on your "topic" branch, it will go to "destination" > remote to update their "topic" branch.
is much more useful (and I already complained about the lack of something like pushRemote recently). I just think it should not be called "downstream", as it is not the reverse of upstream.
-Peff