Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 18, 2013, 22:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s29L1Yr0mQjUmUBr7Zm9NouG5_vrQ4cZ=TY2QbLKMB9eA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=0SwWW+LC3iPy=A9tLBOxrXgYH1cYNazrchv3_jU_oMg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> I guess what I'm saying is: refspec semantics are inherent properties
>> of the remote, not of the local branch.
>
> [remote "ram"]
>     push = refs/heads/link:refs/heads/for-junio/link
>
> is saying: if the branch name matches "link", push it to for-junio/link.
>
> [branch "link"]
>     push = refs/heads/for-junio/link
>
> is saying: push _this_ branch to for-junio/link, irrespective of what
> it is called.
>
> An example illustrating this clearly:
>
> # on branch link-v2
> # work ...
> $ git push
> # work ...
> # ok, I'm ready to replace link
> $ git branch -M link
> $ git push
> # where should the push go?

Exactly where you told it to go.

> Also: putting branch-specific configuration in remote.<name>.push
> would mean that it can potentially accumulate a lot of cruft from
> deleted branches.  It's the same kind problem we face with .gitignore,
> no?

Not many people would use 'remote.<name>.push' and in very specific circumstances. It's not a problem.

-- 
Felipe Contreras