Re: [RFC/PATCH] Introduce branch.<name>.pushremote
- From
- Blind <stoycho.sleptsov@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 19, 2013, 11:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGL0X-ocNDea_iRB8-ZjoSXqSkXn-V9F1Tz51GgpzqtLdg5t5Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALkWK0nJbbA_wjo--LW9v7pP35LS4SUOhZjHVh4dbZqDjSJnew@mail.gmail.com>
2013/2/19 Ramkumar Ramachandra:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > What is your usecase? If you have a local branch with the same name > as on the remote, why wouldn't you want to push-to-update it when you > make changes in the branch? In other words, why doesn't push.default > = matching suffice for most practical purposes. > >> ... or branch.<name>.pushremote can support some kind of a "none" value? > > Not a bad idea at all, provided you tell me your usecase.
The question is infact about branches who are not on the remote. push.default=matching wouldn't upload the branches which are not there already. push --all on other hand pushes .. all (as expected :-))...
Its difficult for me to manage quickly, lets say, "news-to-push/*" and "crazy-ideas/*" branches ...
Blind.