Re: push.default: current vs upstream

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Apr 12, 2012, 08:59 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqfwc9wckl.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20120412081407.GE31122@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Then the rule is not really "act only if upstream and current would do
> the same thing".

Right. That would be closer to "fail with explicit error when where to push is not clear enough".

Show 5 quoted lines

> On the one hand, I think what you are suggesting is reasonable in most
> cases. On the other hand, what if the lack of upstream is because the
> user failed to configure it properly? Then it could be surprising.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either way.

No strong opinion either, but I wanted to raise the point to make sure we agree.

With your patch, "git push" fails with

  fatal: The current branch branch-name has no upstream branch.
  To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
  
      git push --set-upstream origin branch-name

so it's not really bad: the suggestion guides the user to a situation where the next "git push" will succeed unambiguously. As a side effect, the next "git pull" will fetch from the same branch, which is probably what the user wants if he hasn't explicitely configured an upstream branch yet.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/