Re: Branch relationships
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- May 14, 2006, 22:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v8xp4ntbf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <200605150001.48548.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
>> Exactly. I would _want_ to push to both with single action when >> I say "git push ko-private". Actually I have _never_ felt need >> to, but Linus wanted it first and I think it makes sense. > > Hmmm. Isn't this a solution for a very special use-case? > You even can not specify different push lines for the 2 URLs. > I think you want an alias name for a group of remotes here?
Perhaps.
The "push to multiple places" is mostly for Linus backing things up, and I tend to agree that your "alias" notation makes things appear to be more general. However, I do not think you would want to push to two different places with different branch mappings, so I suspect that generality is not buying you much while making things more easily misconfigured.
> I suppose "branch.<branch name>.origin" is still the way to go for > specifying the upstream?
Probably "origin" is a better name for it; I was assuming "branch.<branch name>.remote = foo" refers to a [remote "foo"] section and means "when on this branch, pull from foo and merge from it".