Re: [PATCH 6/6] push: honor branch.*.push

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2013, 08:17 UTC
Message-ID: <7vhagndis4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=aDkCMB3ROSuH1crTmQKjCFyCmvJfvOTiQnBo4+NckBA@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> @@ -194,7 +203,14 @@ static int is_workflow_triagular(struct remote *remote)
>>  static void setup_default_push_refspecs(struct remote *remote)
>>  {
>>         struct branch *branch = branch_get(NULL);
>> -       int triangular = is_workflow_triagular(remote);
>> +       int triangular;
>> +
>> +       if (branch->push_name) {
>> +               setup_per_branch_push(branch);
>> +               return;
>> +       }
>
> The most obvious question comes first: what result can I expect when
> this interacts with remote.<name>.push?

Now you bring it up, the branch.*.push may want to be more specific (when I am on _this_ branch, do this) than remote.*.push (when I am pushing to that remote, I want this to happen in general), but this default codepath would not be exercised when you have remote.*.push, so the logic may need to be moved higher up in the foodchain.

Show 8 quoted lines

> Also, you managed to throw out all safety out the window.  What
> happens when the user does:
>
>   # on branch master, derived from origin
>   $ git push ram
>
> And branch.master.push is set to next?  Will you let her shoot herself
> in the foot like this?

It is not shooting in the foot, if branch.master.push is explicitly set to update next. I do not see any issue in that part.

But the relative strength betweenh branch.*.push and remote.*.push may need to be thought out. I haven't.