From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:29:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Proposal: branch.<name>.remotepush
Message-ID: <CALkWK0nP8m+VY=FzWtxts8hXCBnnQAiD8VB3Krjz70xAt-HLFw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vhalm1unu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> You don't have to.
>
> If the reviewed result is merged on the server side and appear on
> 'master', nobody has to push to update refs/heads/master.

I'm sorry, I meant differentiating between push-for-review and
push-for-personal-work.