Re: push.default: current vs upstream

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> Then the rule is not really "act only if upstream and current would do
>> the same thing".
>
> Right. That would be closer to "fail with explicit error when where to
> push is not clear enough".

>> On the one hand, I think what you are suggesting is reasonable in most
>> cases. On the other hand, what if the lack of upstream is because the
>> user failed to configure it properly? Then it could be surprising.
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion either way.
>
> No strong opinion either, but I wanted to raise the point to make sure
> we agree.
>
> With your patch, "git push" fails with
>
>   fatal: The current branch branch-name has no upstream branch.
>   To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
>   
>       git push --set-upstream origin branch-name
>
> so it's not really bad: the suggestion guides the user to a situation
> where the next "git push" will succeed unambiguously. As a side effect,
> the next "git pull" will fetch from the same branch, which is probably
> what the user wants if he hasn't explicitely configured an upstream
> branch yet.