Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: May 18, 2013, 20:07 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0=0SwWW+LC3iPy=A9tLBOxrXgYH1cYNazrchv3_jU_oMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0kYKZGhthdrb6-7RD_c2A7E9rscAZU3=JHM-4rYre6w=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> I guess what I'm saying is: refspec semantics are inherent properties
> of the remote, not of the local branch.

[remote "ram"]
    push = refs/heads/link:refs/heads/for-junio/link

is saying: if the branch name matches "link", push it to for-junio/link.

[branch "link"]
    push = refs/heads/for-junio/link

is saying: push _this_ branch to for-junio/link, irrespective of what it is called.

An example illustrating this clearly:

# on branch link-v2 # work ... $ git push # work ... # ok, I'm ready to replace link $ git branch -M link $ git push # where should the push go?

Also: putting branch-specific configuration in remote.<name>.push
would mean that it can potentially accumulate a lot of cruft from
deleted branches.  It's the same kind problem we face with .gitignore,
no?