Re: [ITCH] Specify refspec without remote

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 10, 2013, 21:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0m9karG=geF4KYapWJfit7zisiZ46cXNNzjh3+3yUpgVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vhajeku7a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On the other hand, a good thing is that the remote.pushdefault makes
> perfect sense whether you use the upstream mode or the matching
> mode.  I vaguely recall that I kept telling you that the overall
> default should be there and per-branch stuff can come later if/as
> needed, to which you resisted for a couple of rounds of reviews and
> I couldn't quite figure out where the resistance was coming from.
> Come to think of it, perhaps that might be rooted in the same
> reason of not thinking about users of "matching" mode.  I dunno, and
> I do not think it matters.

remote.pushdefault is simple; it doesn't open up interesting possibilities like branch.<name>.pushremote does (I mentioned branch-specific r/w access somewhere else in the thread). Because of my obsession with "current", I never think of the repository as a whole but each branch separately tracking a remote.