Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 20, 2013, 21:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vfvwcqyug.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <E1FE663A82E6499AA9B598B4F60A5CE6@PhilipOakley>
"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
Show 26 quoted lines
> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM >> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Double negation confused my parser. 'push' and 'pull' should be >>>> kept symmetrical in central workflows? >>> >>> They're not the same thing. It is very much intentional and >>> intended: >>> the safety net is not to "ensure that the push and pull are >>> symmetrical" (i.e. among other things, error out if >>> branch.$branch.merge is unset), but rather "ensure that the push and >>> pull are never asymmetrical". >> >> Hmmmm.... >> >> not to "ensure that the push and pull are symmetrical" >> rather "ensure that the push and pull are never asymmetrical". >> >> They still talk the same thing to me. What am I missing? >> >> Am I being clueless, or is there something else going on? > > I think it is a case of the user having explicitly set push=Africa and > pull=Europe which can't be a setting for simple symmetry.
Yeah but then that is not a discussion about central workflow.
I can understand "In a central workflow push and pull should be symmetrical." I can also, with a bit of double-negation brain twisting, understand "In a central workflow, push and pull should not be asymmetrical."
But when I suggest to avoid double-negation, I was told that these two statements mean different things, and the original should not be rewritten to avoid double-negation, which is where my brain stopped and asked for help.