From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:05:35 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement @{publish} shorthand
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mgGyYaTmSTLL5BRpr6cOWgx7VJuQTtuqDnmjCMbXhgqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140124213521.GA26602@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:
> As far as merging it to 'next', I had not really intended it to go that
> far. :) It was more for Ram to use as a base.

Sorry about not having posted a follow-up yet; I'm adjusting to a new
timezone and environment.

> I find some of the
> refactoring questionable, including:
>
>   1. The meaning of branch->pushremote is subtly different from that of
>      branch->remote. Ram's followup refactoring did a better job of
>      that (but he is missing the patches on top to finish out the
>      feature).
>
>   2. We are duplicating the "where to push" logic here. That should
>      probably be factored out so that "git push" and "@{publish}" use
>      the same logic.
>
> And of course there are no tests or documentation. It might work,
> though.

Actually, task (2) is somewhat involved: I still haven't figured out
how to share code with 'git push'.

> I don't mind if you want to merge it and do more work in-tree, but I do
> not think it should graduate as-is. And you may want check from Ram that
> he is not in the middle of his own version based on the patches he sent
> earlier, as reworking them on top of mine would probably just be
> needless extra work.

On that note, can you hold off graduating
jk/branch-at-publish-rebased, Junio? Hopefully, I'll come up with a
replacement over the weekend.

Thanks.