From: Felipe Contreras Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 01:59:38 GMT Subject: Re: Random thoughts on "upstream" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vzjvu1jes.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> What happens if I want to push to 'refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno'? >> >> You would weigh pros-and-cons of supporting such a "single branch >> only" special case, and add a branch level override, and if the >> benefit outweighs the cost of complexity, design and implement it. >> >> The push.default setting is to make sure we have a simple mechanism >> to cover more common cases, and my suspicion is what 'current' gives >> us is already there without the need for 'single'. > > Actually, I suspect that you shouldn't even need to do that > pros-and-cons analysis, because the 'single' thing should cover as a > natural extension of the existing infrastructure. You should only > need to have something like this: > > [remote "there"] > url = ... were you push ... > push = refs/heads/frotz:refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno > push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/topics/* > > Without the 'single', your 'frotz' will be pushed to update > heads/topics/frotz-for-juno, not heads/topics/frotz, because the > exact refspec match will prevent it from matched twice by the > wildcarded one. The imagined 'single' mode would just limit the > push to the current branch, so it would end up pushing to the branch > you want to update, without sending an extra copy to the same name. And would 'git branch --set-downstream-to github/frotz-for-juno' do that? If not it's basically useless for 99% of the users who never fiddle with push refspecs. -- Felipe Contreras