Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 6, 2020, 21:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20200406214607.GA1251506@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200406160439.gg5uu6kepnyxpvuc@feanor>

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 06:04:39PM +0200, Damien Robert wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Heres what happen with such a triangular workflow when we do a `git push`:
> - with push.default=simple, we have
> 	case PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE:
> 		if (triangular)
> 			setup_push_current(remote, branch);
> 		else
> 			setup_push_upstream(remote, branch, triangular, 1);
> 		break;
>   so the current branch is always pushed.

Yeah, otherwise every push to a remote other than origin would require a refspec. I think with respect to for-each-ref, this "triangular" case would only kick in if you define remote.pushDefault (since you can't specify a remote on the command-line).

Though hmm. I guess maybe it could kick in if the upstream of the branch is on a non-default remote? For push, that would work because remote_get() will look at the current branch. But of course in for-each-ref, we're asking speculatively about other branches.

So I think if we want to support this triangular logic in for-each-ref, we need to have a more careful definition than what's in push.c's is_workflow_triangular(). I.e., it would probably make sense to consider it from the position of "if we were on this branch, what would it push".

And ditto for @{push}, I guess.

Show 11 quoted lines

> - with push.default=upstream, we have
> 	case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM:
> 		setup_push_upstream(remote, branch, triangular, 0);
> 		break;
>   which then gives
>   	if (triangular)
> 		die(_("You are pushing to remote '%s', which is not the upstream of\n"
> 		      "your current branch '%s', without telling me what to push\n"
> 		      "to update which remote branch."),
> 
> By the way this matches what the documentation says.

Yeah. I think in the triangular case (at least as defined in push.c) we'd always be pushing to the non-upstream, so this die() makes sense.

In for-each-ref, I guess we'd hit this case with remote.pushDefault again. Without that, we'd always be pushing to the upstream anyway.

Show 12 quoted lines

> However here is the result of
> git -c push.default=$value for-each-ref --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref),%(push)" refs/heads/master
> for $value=
> - simple: to,,
> - upstream: to,refs/heads/other,refs/remotes/from/other
> 
> Note that without my patch the %(push:remoteref) values would always be empty,
> but my patch does not touch %(push).
> 
> So in both branch_get_push_1 and branch_get_push_remoteref I should first
> detect if we have a triangular workflow, and update the logic of the code
> accordingly.

Yes, I agree this could be improved. I'm OK leaving that as a separate fix to your current remoteref work, though.

-Peff