From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:31:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch
Message-ID: <CALkWK0nBUHHkqOQannMu5Kjs00Fro8KBbiocfsT4Uf74jO9FgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1eB+bvg7vnG5S3SBACHTrkpCqJNX-Q2tzEVdvzFWvkcA@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Would I be able to do:
>
> % git branch --set-upstream-to origin/master --set-downstream-to
> github/fc/master
>
> ?
>
> Would I see these branches when I do 'git branch -vv'?
> Would I be able to do 'git push next@{downstream}'?

Hm, losing this functionality in the name of generality would
certainly be very undesirable.

> That is orthogonal to 'branch.A.push' the same way 'remote.B.fetch' is
> orthogonal to 'branch.A.merge'.

Not at all (which is what I've been trying to say).
remote.<name>.fetch is operated on by fetch, while branch.<name>.merge
is operated on by merge; they are really orthogonal.  What happens if
both branch.<name>.push and remote.<name>.push are set?  What will
push do?

Perhaps we should get both, and get branch.<name>.push to override
remote.<name>.push.  The issue being @{d} will not work if
remote.<name>.push is set.  Then again, since we're targeting Gerrit
users here, I don't really think it's an issue: refs/for/master is not
really a "downstream branch"; it's a pseudo-ref that Gerrit handles
internally.