Re: push.default: current vs upstream
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 19, 2012, 16:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqzka7so2p.fsf@junio.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vpqbdeyfh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes: > >> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> ... >>> 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. > > Sounds sensible.
So what happened to this discussion? Does anybody want to roll the "simple" default based on Peff's patch?