Re: DWIM ref names for push/fetch

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > Is this difference simply due to the different languages the matching 
> > portions of these were originally written in?
> 
> If anything, the semantics on the fetch side is _very_ much
> intentional and is done deliberately that way to be usable.  
> 
> On the other hand, push started as "matching only", and then
> "match tail part of the name" as an afterthought.  It was so
> afterthought that it had an idiotic behaviour of independently
> match the source and destination side even when there is no
> colon, which was fixed only recently.
> 
> So if you would want to match fetch and push, you should not
> change the semantics on fetch to match what push does, as the
> latter was done pretty much without design.
> 
> Having said that, I think fetch and push DWIMmery are
> fundamentally different, especially when you do not have a
> colon.  push without storing anything on the receiving end would
> not make any sense whatsoever, but fetch without using tracking
> branches does make perfect sense, so push does pretend dst side
> has what matched with src side pattern, while fetch treats no
> colon pattern as not storing.  IOW, even if we wanted to reuse
> the code on both sides as much as possible, I suspect we would
> need to have details different between them.