Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 17, 2013, 01:31 UTC
Message-ID: <7vzjvu1jes.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vobca3465.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> What happens if I want to push to 'refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno'?
>
> You would weigh pros-and-cons of supporting such a "single branch
> only" special case, and add a branch level override, and if the
> benefit outweighs the cost of complexity, design and implement it.
>
> The push.default setting is to make sure we have a simple mechanism
> to cover more common cases, and my suspicion is what 'current' gives
> us is already there without the need for 'single'.

Actually, I suspect that you shouldn't even need to do that pros-and-cons analysis, because the 'single' thing should cover as a natural extension of the existing infrastructure. You should only need to have something like this:

	[remote "there"]
        	url = ... were you push ...
		push = refs/heads/frotz:refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno
                push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/topics/*

Without the 'single', your 'frotz' will be pushed to update heads/topics/frotz-for-juno, not heads/topics/frotz, because the exact refspec match will prevent it from matched twice by the wildcarded one. The imagined 'single' mode would just limit the push to the current branch, so it would end up pushing to the branch you want to update, without sending an extra copy to the same name.