Re: [RFC PATCH] git push: Push nothing if no refspecs are given or configured

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mar 7, 2009, 02:06 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903070256540.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vr61ash8o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi,

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> > ...
> >> Speaking of which, Steffen (who cannot reply right now, since he is 
> >> AFK for a while) had a patch to install "remote.<branch>.push = HEAD" 
> >> with clone and remote.  Would that be better?
> >
> > Errr... I thought that "remote.<remotename>.push = HEAD" works?
> >
> > But note that "remote.<name>.push = HEAD" (push current branch only) 
> > and "remote.<name>.push = :" (push matching branches, i.e. curent 
> > behavior) works only if you have remote configured... "git push <URL>" 
> > won't be affected, and people (probably) would want to either have 
> > 'nothing' as default, or/and be able to configure it to nothing, 
> > current, or matching (at least).
> 
> When you and Dscho contradict with each other, I seem to end up agreeing 
> with Dscho most of the time, but for this particular one, I completely 
> agree with you.

A word of caution. Quite a few people (or at least a few people who write loud-enough emails) do not like me. So even if you agree with my reasoning, you might want to point out that you are not agreeing with "Dscho", but rather mention that you happened to agree with a particular line of argument.

Certain people might mistake your being convinced by arguments for pure politics otherwise.

Show 8 quoted lines

> I personally think Finn's suggested list is overengineered, and we 
> should start with only three: "nothing", "current" (aka HEAD), and 
> "matching". It is Ok to have a separate discussion to figure out what 
> other default behaviours are desireable, but I think that should come 
> after the dust settled from the transition, and more importantly, I 
> think the other kinds of fine-tuned behaviour needs to be per-remote, 
> and is not something the repository (or user) wide default push.default 
> can cover.

As long as the default does not change without warning, I am sure we are safe there.

Me mentioning Steffen's patch was more meant to kickstart people who missed the discussion into the intricacies, not to say that one or the other default makes most sense.

Personally, I am torn between the current default, which appears massively reasonable to me (probably due to being exposed to Git for quite some time), but I can also see why Steffen's approach appeals to some people.

Ciao, Dscho