Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify "explicitly given" in push.default

From: Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2020, 19:48 UTC
Message-ID: <dfcf0201-b634-2274-f041-a6ec4491825a@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8007df9-002b-6db1-4769-d6bf8c338cdf@googlemail.com>

Dear Jeff,

On 27.01.20 08:00, Bert Wesarg wrote:

Show 36 quoted lines

> On 25.01.20 21:05, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 08:38:04AM +0100, Bert Wesarg wrote:
>>
>>> thanks for this pointer. My initial pointer was the help for push.default:
>>>
>>>   From git-config(1):
>>>
>>>         push.default
>>>             Defines the action git push should take if no refspec is explicitly
>>>             given. Different values are well-suited for specific workflows; for
>>>
>>> Thus I expected, that this takes effect, when just calling 'git push'.
>>
>> Yeah, I agree "explicitly given" is vague there. Perhaps the patch below
>> is worth doing?
>>
>>> What I actually want to achieve, is to track a remote branch with a
>>> different name locally, but 'git push' should nevertheless push to
>>> tracked remote branch.
>>>
>>> In my example above, befor adding the 'push.origin.push' refspec, rename the branch:
>>>
>>>      $ git branch -m local
>>>      $ git push --dry-run
>>>        To ../bare.git
>>>         * [new branch]      local -> local
>>>
>>> Is it possible that this pushes to the tracked branch automatically,
>>> and because I have multiple such branches, without the use of a push
>>> refspec.
>>
>> I think if push.default is set to "upstream" then it would do what you
>> want as long as you set the upstream of "local" (e.g., by doing "git
>> branch --set-upstream-to=origin/master local).
> 
> Thanks. This pushes only the current branch and honors the 'rename'.

while this works …

Show 7 quoted lines

> 
>>
>> There's another way of doing this, which is when you have a "triangular"
>> flow: you might pull changes from origin/master into your local branch
>> X, but then push them elsewhere. Usually this would be pushing to a
>> branch named X on a different remote than origin (e.g., your public fork
>> of upstream on a server). And for that you can set branch.X.pushRemote.

… it does not play well if you have have both flows in one repository. And I do have both flows. I track the upstream 'master' in the local branch 'Y' and I have also a branch 'X' which is based on 'Y' but should be pushed to a different remote as branch 'Y'. I have configured 'branch.X.pushRemote = triangular' but with 'push.default' set to 'upstream' I get this when:

     $ git push triangular
     fatal: You are pushing to remote 'triangular', which is not the upstream of
     your current branch 'X', without telling me what to push
     to update which remote branch.

In this simple case, without a renaming, I would expect that 'git push' just works. May be just fallback to 'simple' if 'upstream' does not resolve to a fully qualified push?

Best, Bert