threads / discuss / 25362

Re: git push <branch-name>

Subject: Re: git push <branch-name>

## tl;dr

3 messages between Oct 5, 2010 and Oct 6, 2010.

replies: 2people: 3as markdown or json

Daniel Johnson· Oct 5, 2010, 22:11 UTC · lore

On Tuesday 05 October 2010 16:29:50 you wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> A newbie colleague asked why: "git push <branch>" didn't work.
> 
> Although I know that "git push <repo> <branch>" is the correct
> syntax, I think that he has a point.  If branch.<branch>.remote
> is defined it seems unambiguous to me.
> 
> So I can't see any reason NOT to dwimify
> 
>     git push <branch>

Isn't that syntax reserved for remotes? for example:

git push origin

I feel like it would be a bad idea to have these 2 types of invocations overlap in syntax like that.

Eric Raible· Oct 5, 2010, 22:28 UTC · re: Daniel Johnson · lore

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Johnson <computerdruid@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Isn't that syntax reserved for remotes?
> for example:
>
> git push origin
>
> I feel like it would be a bad idea to have these 2 types of invocations
> overlap in syntax like that.

The idea is that given "git push <branch>" if <branch> is NOT a remote but IS a branch name then git could unambiguously provide the correct remote.

Naturally if there's a branch and a remote of the same name then for backwards compatibility the remote would be chosen.

Sebastian Harl· Oct 6, 2010, 13:41 UTC · re: Eric Raible · lore

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:28:56PM -0700, Eric Raible wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Johnson <computerdruid@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Isn't that syntax reserved for remotes?
> > for example:
> >
> > git push origin
> >
> > I feel like it would be a bad idea to have these 2 types of invocations
> > overlap in syntax like that.
> 
> The idea is that given "git push <branch>" if <branch> is NOT a remote but
> IS a branch name then git could unambiguously provide the correct remote.
> 
> Naturally if there's a branch and a remote of the same name then for backwards
> compatibility the remote would be chosen.

Please don't do that. Imho, this introduces too much magic in the behavior of git-pull, making it less intuitive to understand and, thus error-prone.

Cheers, Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.         -- Benjamin Franklin