From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] push: introduce new push.default mode "simple"
Message-ID: <4F952FD9.90806@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1335170284-30768-5-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>

On 04/23/2012 10:38 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> [...]
> A question is whether to allow pushing when no upstream is configured. An
> argument in favor of allowing the push is that it makes the new mode work
> in more cases. On the other hand, refusing to push when no upstream is
> configured encourages the user to set the upstream, which will be
> beneficial on the next pull. Lacking better argument, we chose to deny
> the push, because it will be easier to change in the future if someone
> shows us wrong.

I like your conservative approach to this decision.  I agree that a push 
that would create a new branch on the remote server should fail if no 
upstream is configured.

But what do people think about letting push succeed when no upstream is 
configured *provided that* there is already a branch on the remote 
server with the same name as the current branch?  I think this policy 
would cover the bulk of "safe" scenarios without adding 
dangerous/ambiguous ones.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/