Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 19, 2013, 11:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3HaEc1UoULYHYnzd_B_VayfedG_Gd1gT27=SeMdp4=eg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=6L529C452MaNGksL5KeVb+cL1SeC=FwA9veS=tNQurA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> If somebody implements the "push.default = single" (see the original
>> message you are responding to), then the change might be smaller.
>
> I think this is a bad hack covering up an underlying problem: it is
> ugly, confusing, and inextensible in my opinion.  I think of
> push.default as merely a default remote.<name>.push value for all
> remotes, that can be overridden on a per-remote basis.

You can't represent push.default = single either.

-- 
Felipe Contreras