From: chris <jugg@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 06:35:51 GMT
Subject: Re: error with $ git push origin HEAD:newbranch
Message-ID: <loom.20110506T081810-948@post.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v39ks4ebd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
> 
> chris <jugg <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> > All of that to say, it isn't exactly clear what one should expect.
> 
> The take-home lesson is that if you want to be explicit and exactly clear,
> you can and should spell things out in full, and you can sleep well at
> night if you did so.

Yes, in order to be clear, one should be explicit.  But that was never in 
question here.  The discussion revolved around the non-explicit refspec usage 
with git-push.

And certainly there seems to have been attempts in the past to provide sensible 
short-hand usage for the command, but it would appear the accumulation lacks 
consistency.  If the expectation is that one should always be explicit, then I 
assume the short-hand will begin to become deprecated?  If not, then discussing 
it and improving it where possible seems rather acceptable.

chris