From: John Tapsell Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:09:42 GMT Subject: Re: git push Message-ID: <43d8ce650902242309nef12bd9j9088170b18cc8d4e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7vskm3c84t.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> 2009/2/25 Junio C Hamano : > John Tapsell writes: > >>   Following the idea of 'least damage', what do people think of making >> "git push" only push the branch you are currently on? > > Having an easy way to ask to push only one branch (typically the currently > checked-out one) is a good thing.  You can obviously say "git push origin > master" (or whatever branch you are on).  We also added "git push origin > HEAD".  I thought we even added "git push HEAD" or "git push --current", > but I may be mistaken. > > But if you are talking about changing the default when "git push" is run > without any parameter, I have to say it is a terrible idea, for two > reasons, and one is too obvious to state so I wouldn't repeat it and talk > only about the other one. Presumably the obvious is that it might be confusing to existing users? Perhaps, but it doesn't cause any damage. It's moving to a 'safer' default. > I've noticed that people who ask for such a default tend to push too often > and worse they tend to push before they have their act together.  Surely > their other branches may not be ready, but it is likely their current > branch isn't either ;-) You're against making push affect only the current branch in order to punish people who push too often? Okaaay.. > If you shoot for the least damage for such people, the sanest default for > "git push" would be to do nothing.  You *always* say what to push where, > then there is no risk of pushing something you did not intend to.  Perhaps > "push.default = never" configuration may not be such a bad idea? That wouldn't be a terrible idea, although perhaps a bit strange. John