Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
---
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:09AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote:
> > > > It seems like the default should be to push just the
> > > > current branch ... this would correspond to what a user of
> > > > git pull expects (even though the converse of git-push is
> > > > really git-fetch, for a new user, that might not be
> > > > entirely clear).
> > >
> > > I agree with you, but others do not
> >
> > Sounds like an opportunity for a config option.
>
> Again I agree, though I think there is some resistance to that
> (see the thread I mentioned). Junio's opinion seems to be "why
> can't they just use 'git push <remote> HEAD'?" (and he suggested
> a 'git push HEAD' shorthand syntax, as well).
FWIW I would resist, just because that config option would change
the _semantics_ of a git program.
Just think about the IRC channel. "How do I update only HEAD?" --
"Just say 'git push'" -- "No, that updates nothing" -- "Well,
works here" -- "But not here!" ... "Can _nobody_ help me?"
Having inconsistent semantics is wrong, wrong, wrong.
> But then, nobody has put forth a patch, so I think if you wanted
> to argue it, the best way would be to do so (though I think it
> would be rejected, it would give those who wanted to try it
> something to play with).
This is a tongue-in-cheek patch. Just so that nobody can say that
there were no patches.
builtin-push.c | 8 ++++++++
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)