Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 15, 2013, 09:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0=aU1e1jh5kbemde8PEbmbUOpAH0jzGZ=0m6c7L3Wz8bg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vk3o416rq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not think it is a red-herring at all. It is not about > "breaking", but "there will be multiple, conflicting and equally > plausible expectations" that makes me worry about unnecessary > confusion.
Well put.
My solution to the problem is to take one of the three alternatives, and show how it plugs into the larger workflow picture; in this case, how my proposal fits into the larger picture of a local clone being a collection of branches, each having little triangles.