Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> The value "upstream" for push.default does not make sense in the
>> context of a triangular workflow, as you may well base your work on
>> 'master' from the upstream, which is a branch with a very generic
>> purpose (e.g. "to advance the state of the overall project"), but
>> your work may have a more specific purpose (e.g. "to improve frotz
>> feature") that deserves to be on a branch named after that specific
>> purpose in the repository you publish your work on.  That is, after
>> working on your 'frotz' branch this way:
>>
>>     git checkout -t -b frotz origin/master
>>     work work work, commit commit commit
>
> If the user has branch.autosetupmerge=always, that's not correct; even doing:
>
> % git checkout -b frotz origin/master
>
> Would setup the upstream. And I believe for v2.0 we do want
> branch.autosetupmerge=always, but we might not want to always override
> the push location.
>
>> Now I have a curious value "single" in the above configuration that
>> is not understood by current Git.  It is to trigger a new rule to
>> modify the way remote.publish.push refspec is used:
>>
>>     When on branch 'frotz', where pushremote_get() would return
>>     'publish', find where refs/heads/frotz would be pushed with the
>>     refspec for that remote (i.e. refs/heads/*:refs/heads/topics/*
>>     maps refs/heads/frotz to refs/heads/topics/frotz) and push only
>>     that, i.e. update refs/heads/topics/frotz over there with the
>>     tip of 'frotz' we are pushing.
>>
>> That may be a solution for those who do not find 'current' good
>> enough.
>
> What happens if I want to push to 'refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno'?