Re: Proposal: branch.<name>.remotepush

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 8, 2013, 19:18 UTC
Message-ID: <7vhalm1unu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0kR-KWJbG_kWSf7+JMJEQc7vO0Emx=_yogCB0jMBfccAg@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>
>>> And yes, a regular `git push origin refs/for/master` is just retarded.
>>
>> The usual incantation is "git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/master".  Is
>> the code review creation push that uses a different branchname from
>> the branch the integrator pulls what seems backward, or is it the need
>> to specify a refname at all on the command line?
>
> How else would you design a system to differentiate between a
> push-for-review, and push-to-update-ref?

You don't have to.

If the reviewed result is merged on the server side and appear on 'master', nobody has to push to update refs/heads/master.