Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push?
- From
- Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2012, 23:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4F6915A8.9040009@pileofstuff.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vhaxi50q8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 20/03/12 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org> writes: > >> I assume the reason for removing the warning altogether is that some day >> the signal:noise ratio will just get too bad. > > The reasoning is a lot simpler than that. > > If the end game is not remove the warning, then we would be switching to a > new default that is "give loud warning until the user configures her own > default, but push upstream/current anyway" mode. We do not want such a > stupid mode as the default---we want the default to be either upstream or > current at the end, when nobody remembers what the ancient default was. > > The "warn loud but do it anyway" is a very good interim step during the > migration, but is never a good default. If we are going to stop there, > "give loud warning until the user chooses and configures the default, and > push nothing" mode would be a LOT safer and saner default, as it would > really force people to configure the default. Obviously we do not want to > go there, so... >
It sounds like we're disagreeing, but I can't tell what about. I agree that "warn loud but do it anyway" is a bad default in the long term. I propose implementing the behaviour you want by adding a push.default setting to the .git/config file for all new repositories, so that users with a longer-than-expected short term still get the warning. That should warn 99% of the people who need it without bothering anyone that doesn't. What am I missing?
- Andrew