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

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 7, 2014, 21:25 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0==wNMvjHmwnGaQi+RitXgros39+70zWH29=Q238Rkp5A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140107210607.GB28102@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> My daily procedure is something like:
>
>   all_topics |
>   while read topic; do "echo $topic $(git rev-parse $topic@{u})"; done |
>   topo_sort |
>   while read topic upstream; do
>     git rebase $upstream $topic || exit 1
>   done

Ah, I was perhaps over-specializing for my own usecase, where everything is based off 'master'. I never considered 'master' a "true upstream" because I throw away topic branches after the maintainer merges them. If you have long-running branches that you work on a daily basis, the issue is somewhat different.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> While doing respins, the prompt doesn't aid you in any way. Besides,
>> on several occasions, I found myself working on the same forked-branch
>> from two different machines; then the publish-point isn't necessarily
>> always a publish-point: it's just another "upstream" for the branch.
>
> Right, things get trickier then. But I don't think there is an automatic
> way around that. Sometimes the published one is more up to date, and
> sometimes the upstream thing is more up to date.  You have to manually
> tell git which you are currently basing your work on. I find in such a
> situation that it tends to resolve itself quickly, though, as the first
> step is to pull in the changes you pushed up from the other machine
> anyway (either via "git reset" or "git rebase").

My primary concern is that the proposed @{publish} should be a first-class citizen; if it has everything that @{u} has, then we're both good: you'd primarily use @{u}, while I'd primarily use @{publish}.