Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 23, 2013, 17:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0n+_QqavstRCt8zM5ahmu9jnKB4M4XwdtqB4qSsJgq=hQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vppwhfw20.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I am not saying default=single would be _the_ single right way to > solve it, but "when you have default=single, remote.$name.push is > used only to describe the mapping, not forcing you to push > everything out at once" is one possible solution to that.
The big advantage it has, in my opinion, is ease of implementation: you'd essentially have to grab the remote.<name>.push refspec, rewrite it to replace refs/heads/*: with $HEAD: and feed that refspec to the transport layer. Compare that to inventing a new refspec syntax, which is a mammoth task. We can always extend the refspec later, if we want that. I wonder if it makes sense to bake the functionality into current though: will we be breaking anything?
(My opinion has changed after wrestling with the horrible transport layer)