From: Wincent Colaiuta Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:49:23 GMT Subject: Re: git push (mis ?)behavior Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <04A74C2E-272B-4F5C-9254-11C9244091AF@zib.de> El 4/10/2007, a las 18:24, Steffen Prohaska escribió: > On Oct 4, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > >>> I do not find it very intuitive to mangle the push behaviour into >>> the >>> naming of the local branch. I think it would be a good idea if the >>> two commands above would either both setup a pull/push relation >>> or both would setup a pull-only relation. If pull-only would be the >>> default another switch could be provided to establish a pull/push >>> relation, like >>> >>> git checkout --track --push -b mynext origin/next >>> >>> Comments? >> >> Interesting. To me that doesn't seem to be intuitive at all. I >> actually think it makes a lot of sense for the relationship to be >> "one way" in the absence of matching ref names. >> >> Basically, the distributed model works because you know that if >> you have the same commit hash in two repositories you're talking >> about the same thing. Same thing goes for branches; if you expect >> to be able to push back upstream then it's natural to expect that >> that should only work if you have the same ref name to identify >> the "what" that you're actually pushing to. > > But how do multiple remotes fit into your model? Maybe my example > above was a bit to simple. How about this one: > > git checkout --track --push -b masterA remoteA/master > git checkout --track --push -b masterB remoteB/master > > I understand what it means because I devised my local naming model. > The model could look totally wrong to you, but it's in my repository. > You'd never see it. But if it fits my mental model, why should git > enforce its master-means-always-master-and-must-not-be-named- > differently > model? I think I'll leave it up to someone who knows a bit more than me to answer that one... It's not a use case I've ever sought out as I usually only work with one upstream remote. Sorry I don't have anything intelligent to add. Cheers, Wincent