Re: push.default, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2009, #04; Sat, 14)

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Nanako Shiraishi wrote:
>
>> Quoting Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
>> 
>> > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> >
>> >> * fg/push-default (Wed Mar 11 23:01:45 2009 +0100) 1 commit
>> >>  - New config push.default to decide default behavior for push
>> >> 
>> >> Replaced the old series with the first step to allow a smooth 
>> >> transition. Some might argue that this should not give any warning 
>> >> but just give users this new configuration to play with first, and 
>> >> after we know we are going to switch default some day, start the 
>> >> warning.
>> >
>> > IIRC Steffen posted a patch series earlier, where he initialized 
>> > remote.origin.push upon clone (I am not sure if he provided a 
>> > corresponding patch for checkout --track), but personally, I think 
>> > that would be nicer than having a push.default.
>> 
>> Isn't recent trend to avoid such inconsistency between behavior in an 
>> existing repository and behavior in a newly created repository? For 
>> example, Jeff calls such inconsistency in
>> 
>>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/100339/focus=100433
>> 
>> as "this breaks in my repo, but when I make a test repo it works". Junio 
>> even called it 'madness' (^_^;)
>
> My point is that it is _not_ an inconsistency.
>
> It has a default setting.  One that already is well established.  Push the 
> matching refs.
>
> But you can override it by setting the config variable.  Which is also 
> well established.
>
> The only thing Steffen's patches would have changed would be to set the 
> default differently now.
>
> Which is not that much of a 'madness'.
>
> Especially if you think about changing the default, which _will_ make for 
> angry users ("why did you change the default?  I _liked_ it!  Please 
> revert _now_!").