# Re: git push <branch-name>

3 messages from 2010-10-05 to 2010-10-06. Participants: Daniel Johnson, Eric Raible, Sebastian Harl.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/25362

## Daniel Johnson, 2010-10-05 22:11

Subject: Re: git push <branch-name>
Message-ID: <201010051811.49211.ComputerDruid@gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/201010051811.49211.ComputerDruid%40gmail.com

```
On Tuesday 05 October 2010 16:29:50 you wrote:
> 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, 2010-10-05 22:28

Subject: Re: git push <branch-name>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=sDDXRKuHf93cZ4fSVpZFvgyB+k934qg7gDL9T@mail.gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/AANLkTi%3DsDDXRKuHf93cZ4fSVpZFvgyB%2Bk934qg7gDL9T%40mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201010051811.49211.ComputerDruid@gmail.com>

```
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.

```

## Sebastian Harl, 2010-10-06 13:41

Subject: Re: git push <branch-name>
Message-ID: <20101006134135.GS26193@chough.tokkee.org>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20101006134135.GS26193%40chough.tokkee.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=sDDXRKuHf93cZ4fSVpZFvgyB+k934qg7gDL9T@mail.gmail.com>

```
Hi,

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


```