Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push?

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2012, 16:43 UTC
Message-ID: <m3ty1j2pg4.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <CACPiFCKbfgSZMnpc6Q_Lg6n5YMHQ2bad-bwQsyASk0eMuiAFTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> > If the conclusion of the discussion is that we will change the default,
> > the transition to the new default will go like this:
> 
> I am in general agreement with the course of action outlined. There is
> one little thing I had expected in addition, that is not discussed:
> 
>  --force should change behaviour, immediately, to "current" or even
> none (forcing the user to name the remote and branch explicitly).
> 
> The potential for messups with --force combined with "matching" and a
> repo that allows it is considerable. And I cannot imagine any
> mainstream use cases for --force defaulting to matching; at least none
> important enough to counterbalance the damage.

Well, one can always use

  git push <remote> +:

instead of

  git push --force

for "matching" push... but I think you would have to provide name of repository.

-- 
Jakub Narebski