Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] push: introduce '--heads' option

From: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2022, 12:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20221215122719.11996-1-tenglong.tl@alibaba-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqilippgp2.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> My knee-jerk reaction is to avoid "--heads" and instead use
> "--branches", if this is about pushing all local branches.  The
> option "--heads" may still remain in some commands added to the
> system in the earliest part of our history, but soon we started
> to use "branch" over "head", as it is a more commonly used word.

OK, that's true, I just misled by some existing '--heads' in other commands.

> How should it interact with --follow-tags?  Just as if you listed
> all local branch names on the command line?  I.e. is

Actually I didn't try '--follow-tags' before, but the documentation about it is a ittle hard to understand for me on first reading. Then, I think it supports to use as negative '--[no-]follow-tags' but not marked in the git-push.txt documentation.

Show 5 quoted lines

>     git push $URL --heads
>
> equivalent to the long-hand
>
>     git push $URL $(git for-each-ref --format='%(refname)' refs/heads/\*)

git push $URL $(git for-each-ref --format='%(refname)' refs/heads/\*\*) maybe to recursivly subdirectories matching?

Actually I didn't get why you represent this, maybe try to let's us know there is another way we could make it as the same result?

Show 5 quoted lines

> and because of that, does
>
>     git push $URL --any --other --option --heads
>
> behave identically to the long-hand with these other options added?

I think you concerned about the compatibility with the interaction of the options, if so, I think a direct way is to keep --all and --heads both have the some behavior when interact with other options, a little confused why we have to use the long-hand to do that.

By the way, it seems like there are no specify tests for '--all', maybe we can add some tests about '--all' first if this RFC patch is worthy to continue.

Thanks.