Re: Triangular workflow

From: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 14, 2026, 02:22 UTC
Message-ID: <CALnO6CAnfmDfCFJY55J81TTeRCYqeHq=dVapeanF0d0Z_yg=tw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260113230107.16728-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 6:01 PM Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

>
> Hi Jeff!
>
> I'm very happy that your responded respectfully despite me basically
> saying that you were using Git wrong. It's nice to see how some of the pros
> do it!
>
> I'm wondering if since you are scripting this anyway, if you really need a
> push branch at all? Can't you just as easily switch to doing this in the
> script:
>
>     git config push.default upstream
>     git push github jk/some-topic

The script is doing the "moral equivalent of" "git push -f github refs/heads/jk/*", so I'm not sure I follow the suggestion here.

Show 13 quoted lines

> As a note, before I started working on this feature, I don't realize
> that there was such a thing as a push branch (i.e. something different from
> the tracking branch). So I had the habit of checking out and pushing like
> this:
>
>     git branch --set-upstream-to upstream/master
>     git push origin $(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
>
> I worked really well for me. The only issue was missing the status info
> from my own branch -- which is why I started writing this feature.
>
>
> Harald

My workflow is different from Peff's, but it is similar along at least one line: it's really convenient to have "git push" with no further arguments (only possibly flags) to push my branch to a remote mirror.

-- 
D. Ben Knoble