Re: [PATCH 4/7] push: introduce new push.default mode "simple"

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Apr 23, 2012, 11:20 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqy5pmu22q.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4F952FD9.90806@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> I like your conservative approach to this decision.

Conservativeness is not the only argument. I originally thought we should follow 'current' when no upstream is configured, but I changed my mind noticing that the error message suggests "git push --set-upstream".

The question is, if the user has no upstream configured, whether we should let him continue without configuring it, or whether it's better to encourage him to set the upstream.

I can see senarios where people would want to push to current, and merge from @{upstream} (e.g. push = publish, pull = get changes from another developer). But I think most if not all senarios would benefit from having the upstream configured (even if you never pull, the ability to run "git log ^@{upstream}", or argumentless "git rebase -i" and the hints in "git status" telling you how many unpushed revisions you have are nice).

Now, I agree that "denying the push with an advice" is a bit too strong when the goal is "encourraging to set upstream", so that's why I think it's debatable.

Show 5 quoted lines

> But what do people think about letting push succeed when no upstream
> is configured *provided that* there is already a branch on the remote
> server with the same name as the current branch?  I think this policy
> would cover the bulk of "safe" scenarios without adding
> dangerous/ambiguous ones.

No strong opinion. My arguments above argue in favor of rejecting this, but I'd be fine with that.

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