Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2013, 06:00 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2sKWCswB+wT6OiyrA5_oVqUkDptrkdZCjWCucUL3KrKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vip2j8ozu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It doesn't make sense to push to the upstream branch, so create new
>> configurations for the notion of 'downstream' branch, which is basically
>> the branch to push to by default.
>
> It doesn't?  That depends.
>
> To people coming from (and people who are still using) central
> shared repository workflow, pushing to anywhere other than the
> upstream makes no sense.

Semantics I guess; you can say they are pushing to the upstream, or that they are pushing downstream, which happens to be the same as the upstream.

My rationale was that at some point in the future we might want to remove the code that pushes upstream, and only push downstream. And either way configure downstream when creating new branches with tracking. But I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Show 8 quoted lines

> If qualified with something like "When using a triangular workflow
> to pull from one place and push to another place" in front, I can
> see why having a separate upstream and downstream makes sense, and...
>
>> The upstream branch is remote+merge, the downstream branch is
>> pushremote+push.
>
> ... this is a perfect explanation of what a downsream is.

Cool. I haven't decided how best to set the downstream yet, but for me it's more important that 'git fetch' works sanely (patch #1), and I don't like the proposed patch, but I can't think of anything better.

-- 
Felipe Contreras