From: Philip Oakley Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:49:57 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vd2rgtwl3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> From: "Junio C Hamano" Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM > Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Decouple `simple` from `upstream` completely, and change it to mean >>>> `current` with a safety feature: a `push` and `pull` should not be >>>> asymmetrical in the special case of central workflows. >>> >>> Double negation confused my parser. 'push' and 'pull' should be >>> kept symmetrical in central workflows? >> >> They're not the same thing. It is very much intentional and >> intended: >> the safety net is not to "ensure that the push and pull are >> symmetrical" (i.e. among other things, error out if >> branch.$branch.merge is unset), but rather "ensure that the push and >> pull are never asymmetrical". > > Hmmmm.... > > not to "ensure that the push and pull are symmetrical" > rather "ensure that the push and pull are never asymmetrical". > > They still talk the same thing to me. What am I missing? > > Am I being clueless, or is there something else going on? I think it is a case of the user having explicitly set push=Africa and pull=Europe which can't be a setting for simple symmetry. But then again I haven't been following the fine details. (that is there are some defaults that allow stuff to be half set) > > Your "among other things", after reading it three times, > unfortunately did not help clarify anything to me, so perhaps > somebody other than me (or you for that matter) who is more clueful > can help find a different way to explain the difference you are > trying to express to me. > > Help, anybody? > Philip [...]