From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 22:19:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Branch relationships
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:

>> 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".