Re: Minor annoyance with git push
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Feb 20, 2008, 15:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802201535250.17164@racer.site>
- In-Reply-To
- <76718490802200720w4dd89dc1lf7b19d546d3bfd00@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jay Soffian wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> On Feb 20, 2008 8:06 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > Putting this "push = HEAD" by default when "git clone" and "git > > > remote add" creates the [remote "$remote"] section is probably > > > possible, and at that stage we may even be able to do the "if the > > > other end is shared, then set this up automagically", as the result > > > of the magic can be inspected in the resulting config file. > > > > I think this is too magic, both of it. Once people get used to "git > > push" being implicitly "git push origin HEAD", why should they not > > expect "git push <somewhere-else>" to push "HEAD" implicitly, too? > > Well then, how about (don't cringe too much now...) > > push.conservative = true > > If enabled and "git push" is run w/o arguments, it will first emit what > it plans to push and then prompt with "yes/no." I'm kinda opposed to > silly prompts -- folks just always go right past them -- so I dunno. > > But it does make the operation a bit more safe I guess.
That depends awfully on your definition of "safe".
I, for one, hate the idea already, that I am "safe" when "git push" does not do the thing I asked it to, and which it has done for a couple of years now without complaint, and which I have gotten used to.
And then, there will be a great confusion for me, since I work on 5 different machines on an average day, with 5 different git versions, and having different config settings.
That is not "safe" for me.
Thankyouverymuch, Dscho