Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: introduce format.defaultTo

From: John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net>
Date: Jan 6, 2014, 20:29 UTC
Message-ID: <CAEBDL5UaS2Hd-Yb417W+Fw_7j1+5sRAgszko-PbU7z901_X+cw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140106201854.GA28162@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:06:51PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Unless you set @{u} to this new configuration, in which case the
>> choice becomes dynamic depending on the current branch, but
>>
>>  - if that is the only sane choice based on the current branch, why
>>    not use that as the default without having to set the
>>    configuration?
>>
>>  - Or if that is still insufficient, don't we need branch.*.forkedFrom
>>    that is different from branch.*.merge, so that different branches
>>    you want to show "format-patch" output can have different
>>    reference points?
>
> Yeah, I had similar thoughts. I personally use "branch.*.merge" as
> "forkedFrom", and it seems like we are going that way anyway with things
> like "git rebase" and "git merge" defaulting to upstream. But then there
> is "git push -u" and "push.default = upstream", which treats the
> upstream config as something else entirely.

Just for more reference, I rarely use "branch.*.merge" as "forkedFrom". I typically want to use master as my target, but like Ram, I publish my changes elsewhere for safe keeping. I think in a typical, feature branch-based workflow @{u} would be nearly useless.

-John