Re: [PATCH v3] push: Enhance unspecified push default warning

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Nov 7, 2013, 10:52 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqtxfo8ow4.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20131106234544.GF10302@google.com>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> 	When push.default is set to 'matching', git will push local branches
> 	to remote branches that already exist with the same (matching) name.

Yes, that's better than the original patch (and remains two lines).

Show 24 quoted lines

>>>>> +   "In Git 2.0 the new push.default of 'simple' will push only the current\n"
>>>>> +   "branch to the same remote branch used by git pull.   A push will\n"
>>>>> +   "only succeed if the remote and local branches have the same name.\n"
>>>
>>> while you can see that it is not telling a lie if you read it twice,
>>> "will only succeed if" feels somewhat roundabout.
>>>
>>> 	... push only the current branch back to the branch of the
>>> 	same name, but only if 'git pull' is set to pull from that
>>> 	branch. Otherwise the push will fail.
>>>
>>> might be an improvement, but I dunno.
>>
>> I do not see much difference actually. I tend to prefer the original
>> version: to me the expected behavior is to make push and pull
>> essentially symetrical, and the fact that it fails if the branch is
>> named differently is a safety feature comming on top of that.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> 	In Git 2.0 (or now, if push.default is set to 'simple'), git will behave
> 	more conservatively by pushing only the current branch to the corresponding
> 	remote branch used by "git pull", and only if the remote and local branches
> 	have the same name.

I prefered the original, as it had two sentences. Reading only the first one gave the important information.

> 	In Git 2.0, git will default to a more conservative 'simple' behavior
> 	that only pushes the current branch.

That's an option too, but I think mentionning "git pull" was a good idea.

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