Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify difference between `push.default` `simple` and `current`

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 23, 2025, 23:36 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqseimjx8b.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <pull.1944.git.1753311625075.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

"Dan Fabulich via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> From: Dan Fabulich <dan@fabulich.com>
>
> The documentation made `simple` and `current` sound identical. The
> difference is that `simple` strictly checks that the upstream tracking
> branch's name matches the current branch's name.

All of the above are correct, and a patch that sticks to fixing that would have given us a great improvement.

Thanks for working on this documentation update, but it seems some unrelated changes are mixed in.

Show 5 quoted lines

>  	Different values are well-suited for
>  	specific workflows; for instance, in a purely central workflow
>  	(i.e. the fetch source is equal to the push destination),
> -	`upstream` is probably what you want.  Possible values are:
> +	`simple` is probably what you want.  Possible values are:

This change is not explained/justified at all why it was part of the patch in the proposed log message.

And I do not think this is a good change. `upstream` is recommended for most people when they employ a purely central workflow. You can start working from the common 'master', even on multiple topics in parallel at the same time, and perform "git push" with push.default set to 'upstream'. With 'simple' you cannot.

    $ git checkout -t -b theme1 origin/master
    ... work work work ...
    $ git checkout -t -b theme2 origin/master
    ... work work work ...
    ... changes for theme2 become complete first ...
    $ git push

Here, if your push.default is set to 'upstream', your theme2 updates their master, which is exactly what you want. Then

    $ git fetch origin
    $ git rebase origin/master theme1
    ... rebased on updated 'master' at theirs --- at least it should
    ... contain what we did on our theme2 topic, but possibly
    ... changes from other people.
    ... more work ...
    $ git push

Again, your theme1 updates their master, which is exactly what you want.

Show 9 quoted lines

> @@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ push.default::
>    given. This is primarily meant for people who want to
>    avoid mistakes by always being explicit.
>  
> -* `current` - push the current branch to update a branch with the same
> -  name on the receiving end.  Works in both central and non-central
> +* `current` - push the current branch to update the branch with the same
> +  name on the remote.  Works in both central and non-central
>    workflows.

Again, a change that is not explained/justified. "a" -> "the" I can understand (i.e. a branch with the same name is unique over there, so "the" is more appropriate), but not the other one.

Show 7 quoted lines

>  * `tracking` - This is a deprecated synonym for `upstream`.
>  
> -* `simple` - push the current branch with the same name on the remote.
> +* `simple` - push the current branch to its upstream tracking branch,
> +  but only if the upstream tracking branch has the same name as the
> +  current branch. (`simple` will fail with an error if the upstream
> +  tracking branch's name doesn't match the current branch's name.)

That is correct. The additional text may be somewhat helpful for somebody who just got an error message and wants to understand where the error comes from.

But stepping back a bit, is understanding why it failed the primary thing our documentation should aim for? I'd rather see our documentation help the user achieve what they wanted to do in the first place. I.e., Be able to push without an error to publish their work. And for that "this will fail when X" is less helpful than "this is appropriate if you work this way."

    simple - this is like `upstream` but with additional restriction
    that the local branch must be named the same as its upstream
    branch.  Suitable with a very simple centralized workflow, where
    you fork off of their 'master' branch to create your own
    'master', work there, and push the branch back.

>  +
> -If you are working on a centralized workflow (pushing to the same repository you
> -pull from, which is typically `origin`), then you need to configure an upstream
> -branch with the same name.

I do not think this removal is explained/justified, either. Those who set push.default to 'simple' while using the centralized workflow must use one-to-one correspondence, so this advice is very relevant. What makes it a good idea to remove it?

Thanks.