Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> And that was done with extensivility your example implied in mind:
>> you may later be allowed to push other branches as well to origin.
>> That is why the refspec definition for 'origin' does not hardcode
>> the name of the branch you are permitted to push there at this
>> moment.  The fact that hot-branch goes to origin is encapsulated in
>> the branch.hot-branch.pushremote.  The rule, under which the name of
>> any branch that goes to the origin is renamed, is encapsulated in
>> remote.origin.push refspec (the introduction of the new mode
>> "push.default = single" is necessary to make this work).
>
> My problem with this entire scheme _is_ the magic push.default =
> single.  Currently, push.default only kicks in when no
> remote.<name>.push refspec is specified (in other words, it is a
> default value of remote.<name>.push for all remotes), and I don't
> think we should change this.  If the user wants to configure the push
> refspec (either for rewriting, or for determining what to push), there
> is exactly one thing to change: remote.<name>.push.  So I can have:
>
> [remote "theodore"]
>     push = master
>     push = +pu
>
> This means that I will always push master without force and pu with
> force, irrespective of the branch I'm on.
>
> [remote "origin"]
>     push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/rr/*
>
> This means that I will always push all branches without force with
> rewriting, irrespective of the branch I'm on.
>
> [remote "ram"]
>     push = HEAD:refs/heads/rr/%1
>
> This means that I will always push the current branch without force,
> with rewriting.
>
> [remote "felipe"]
>      # empty
>
> This means that remote."felipe".push falls back to the refspec
> specified by push.default.
>
> Isn't branch.<name>.push is completely unnecessary?