Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push

> John Keeping wrote:
> > I may be an atypical user, but my expectation currently is that
> > branch.<name>.remote is what is used when I run "git push" with no
> > additional arguments.
> >
> > This is probably because whenever I add additional arguments (currently)
> > I have to specify where I am pushing to.
> >
> > So I think breaking user expectations is a red herring here because the
> > current behaviour means that users cannot have any expectation of what
> > will happen in this case.  Either you don't say anything and "git push"
> > DTRT for your current branch or you must specify precisely what you want
> > to happen (or at least the remote to use if you have push.default =
> > matching or remote.<name>.mirror set).
> >
> > Personally I'd vote for "git push -- master" pushing to
> > remote.pushdefault, but I really don't know how you handle "git push --"
> > with the naïve implementation of that - is it the same as "git push" or
> > "git push $(git config remote.pushdefault)"?
> 
> We're not changing, or even discussing, what a plain git push without
> destination or refspecs specified should do (yes, that means git push
> -- too); it depends on push.default, which already exists.  My
> proposal does not aim to change the current behavior of _any_ current
> invocation (that means git push, git push origin master, git push next
> master v1.2, and so on). It aims to make the new syntax git push
> master +next behave logically.  I think we can all agree that the
> logical solution (leaving aside founded/ unfounded user expectations)
> is to pick destinations for each of the branches specified
> individually.  As I explained in my last email, using
> remote.pushdefault is Wrong because it treats branches like tags, and
> invents a new precedence.  Voting without a basis is useless: do you
> have a counter-argument for the points I raised as to why it is Wrong?