Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] branch: display publish branch

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 12, 2014, 14:34 UTC
Message-ID: <53494f09531cc_c9914c7308a@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20140412112344.GA14820@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:48:01AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 
> > I think of @{publish} as "the branch the user has configured to push
> > to"; it overrides all other configurations (push.default and push
> > refspecs). I wouldn't mind having a @{push} *in addition* to @{publish}
> > that would have the behavior you mention, but for @{publish} I'm pretty
> > certain the behavior I want is that it maps *directly* to what the user
> > has configured.
> 
> I guess I don't understand why we need "branch.*.push" when we already
> have push refspecs that do the same thing (and are more powerful, as
> they can glob).

Really? I think it's pretty simple.

I have a configuration similar to the following

  [remote "gh"]
  	url = git@github.com:felipec/git.git
  [branch "master"]
  	pushremote = gh
  	push = refs/heads/master
  [branch "fc/master"]
  	pushremote = gh
  	push = refs/heads/fc/master
  [branch "up/publish"]
  	pushremote = gh
  	push = refs/heads/fc/publish

Now, if I didn't, I could create it easily with something like this:

  % git push -p gh master
  % git push -p gh fc/master
  % git push -p gh up/publish:fc/publish

How would that translate to push refspecs?

  [remote "gh"]
  	url = git@github.com:felipec/git.git
  	push = refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master
  	push = refs/heads/fc/master:refs/heads/fc/master
  	push = refs/heads/up/master:refs/heads/fc/publish
  [branch "master"]
  	pushremote = gh
  [branch "fc/master"]
  	pushremote = gh
  [branch "up/publish"]
  	pushremote = gh

So in theory it could be possible to make it work without branch.x.push.

If I run `git branch -v`, it would show the publish branch correctly.

  master cee0c27 [origin/master, gh/master] Git 1.9.1

However, if I have a configuration like this:

  [remote "gh"]
  	url = git@github.com:felipec/git.git
  	push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*

Git would still show the same publish branch, even though the user never explicitely told it do to so (e.g. with `git push -p`). To me this is not OK; if I haven't specifically set a publish branch, it shouldn't be shown.

And then, what happens when I do:

  % git branch --unset-upstream up/publish

Or:

  % git branch -d up/publish

Should Git remove the appropriate push refspec? What if that refspec was manually added by the user before the concept of the publish branch even existed?

To me using the refspec just adds more complications, and it's not symetric with @{upstream}. With branch.x.push, the symetry is very much there; the code is similar to @{upstream}, the configuration as well, and what the user expects too; it's much simpler. Also, the user can clearly see what are his manually configured refspecs, as opposed to the ones added by `git push -p`.

It's just neat.

-- 
Felipe Contreras