Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows

From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Jun 24, 2013, 08:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CALKQrgfCR10nfP9tVuHyhCPOfe3XVvBzzQayhM7b9Ra5ZDGnMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0mAyDb3AjH0s3j2gRRDckx=a2nr9MR+O6gEtwX2MSJrtw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Johan Herland wrote:
>>> +static void setup_push_current(struct remote *remote, struct branch *branch)
>>> +{
>>> +       if (!branch)
>>> +               die(_(message_detached_head_die), remote->name);
>>> +       add_refspec(branch->name);
>>
>> Here (and above) we add a refspec to tell Git exactly what to push
>> from the local end, and into what on the remote end.
>
> Nope, we add the refspec "foo", without the :destination part.  The
> remote end is unspecified (and defaults to "foo", but that is in the
> transport layer).

Ok, so "foo" is not always semantically equivalent to "foo:foo", and when adding "foo:bar" it is always considered more specific than (and superior to) "foo". I think that makes sense.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> Is it possible to
>> end up with multiple simultaneous refspecs matching the same local
>> ref, but mapping to different remote refs? If so, which will win, and
>> does that make sense?
>
> It is impossible.  We either:
>
> - Get an explicit refspec from the user and never run
> setup_default_push_refspecs() to begin with.
>
> - Run setup_push_refspecs() and add *one* refspec depending on the
> push.default value.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. But then, does it make sense to say that we will only ever have exactly _one_ push refspec in the current context, and we should therefore replace the "static const char **refspec;" string array with a single "static const char *refspec;" string? That would make it obvious that there is no room for ambiguity with overlapping refspecs.

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net