From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:50:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push
Message-ID: <46a038f90802090350rc4780d1ted60c03b9abf1fc0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vtzkihkx5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Feb 9, 2008 4:24 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Is there anything wrong with "git push $there $branch_name"?

This works, but is rather verbose to type all the time.

>         $ git push origin HEAD
>
> and you are done.  No need to spell out the long branch name you
> are currently on.

Didn't know this was meant to work. I'll give it a go.

> I do not know if this was part of the last round of patches, but
> I suspect it is not a problem to allow
>
>         $ git push HEAD
>
> if it is unambiguous.  That is, "HEAD?  Do we have such a remote
> nickname?  No.  Then can we default to 'origin' and use it as
> the ref to push?  Yeah, we can, so the user meant 'git push
> origin HEAD'".

If I can say git push HEAD it will be nice.

Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it
really means "stale".

And I don't completely follow how bad the impact of
auto-fast-forwarding local tracking branches on a merge. If it's a
fast-forward, my "local state" wasn't that exciting to begin with ;-)
and revlogs can potentially rescue my olden state (but what's the use
case for the local state being interesting, anyway?). Yes - user state
is important, but something that resolves to a fast-forward means that
the user state, whatever it is, is in sync with the repo.

As per the subject, these are minor annoyances. The whole
remotes+local heads setup works like a charm ;-)

cheers,



m