Re: Proposal: branch.<name>.remotepush

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 8, 2013, 18:42 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0kR-KWJbG_kWSf7+JMJEQc7vO0Emx=_yogCB0jMBfccAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130207233017.GD19397@google.com>

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>
>> And yes, a regular `git push origin refs/for/master` is just retarded.
>
> The usual incantation is "git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/master".  Is
> the code review creation push that uses a different branchname from
> the branch the integrator pulls what seems backward, or is it the need
> to specify a refname at all on the command line?

How else would you design a system to differentiate between a push-for-review, and push-to-update-ref?

On a slightly unrelated note, it would be nice if we could streamline the git-format-patch, git-send-email process. Let's say we make it a push', which has a pre-hook that fires up the $EDITOR for a cover letter. Wouldn't you love it if this push' would update refs on your private fork and fire off emails to the Git List? Bonus for contrib/: fetch the Google address book, and allow me to auto-complete names when sending emails.

> I agree that a "[branch "master"] pushremote" configuration would be
> handy.  pushremote instead of remotepush to be less surprising to
> people who have already seen pushurl.

Thanks for that, by the way (used in RFC patch). My taste in variable names is a little sour.