From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:44:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push
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.