From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:11:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Proposal: branch.<name>.remotepush
Message-ID: <7vsj563f3z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <5114D5B0.5080906@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:

> As for the triangle remote, I really think we should clean up the
> situation regarding push, pushurlinsteadof and the various different and
> inconclusive output formats of "git remote" (with or without "-v", with
> or without a remote name) first, before introducing yet another way to
> twist things around. "git push downstream" does not hurt any kittens
> (while git remote ouput does, somehwat).

As people tend to fetch more often than they push if they are
working on a real project where the others as a whole will be far
more productive than any single individual, I agree that keeping
"git fetch" (or "git pull") lazy by having "origin" point at where
they fetch from and be a bit more explicit in "git push" would
actually make sense.