From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:16:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Introduce publish tracking branch
Message-ID: <53483f7984cb8_2c1f6e72ecc0@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <vpqd2gng4nl.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > My patch series only affects push.default=simple, perhaps you have a
> > different configuration.
> 
> Good catch. I have push.default=upstream (essentially for compatibility
> with old Git versions, I'd prefer simple actually).
> 
> > Maybe we want the publish branch to override any push.default, so:
> 
> Not sure actually. If a user says "push.default=upstream", it seems
> weird to push to something other than upstream indeed. What's clear to
> me is that your patch in its current form clearly makes "simple" a much
> better default than "upstream" (good news, it it the default!).

As you said in another email; that's just the default. If the user explicitely
told Git to use certain branch (git push -p), Git should use that branch.

> That said, the advice given by "git status" is clearly wrong:
> 
> > >   $ git status
> > >   On branch master
> > >   Your branch is ahead of 'origin/new' by 4 commits.
> > >     (use "git push" to publish your local commits)
> 
> It should say (use "git push origin new" to publish your local commits)
> with push.default=upstream and the current behavior of the patch.
> 
> Perhaps argumentless "git push" could warn when push.default=upstream
> and branch.<name>.publish is configured, I'm not sure.
> 
> Sorry, more questions and "I'm not sure" than actual suggestion :-(.

I believe in v3 of the patch series "git push" will actually do it correctly.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras