From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:06:54 GMT
Subject: Re: push.default: current vs upstream
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:

> 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?