Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 19, 2013, 12:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMP44s3OCPZYK8Cm25hLLGVOcQ5VAZ103-apHeDf3+gR5GjOcA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALkWK0mOH8ZpmDR3HWW3j-q9fEpSawNonLDDWixD9LrPcKNnDA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Felipe Contreras wrote: >> You can't represent push.default = single either. > > Right. And I propose that we extend the refspec to be able to > represent it, instead of having "single" sticking out like a sore > thumb (and possibly introducing more sore thumbs like this in the > future).
Yeah, go ahead and have fun making refspecs Turing complete. Why? Because you decided to call something a "sore thumb". Calling something a "sore thumb" doesn't make it so.
We, the sane people, will people will keep using simple configuration options. Hopefully some day there won't be much need for many of the current configurations, including push.default.
-- Felipe Contreras