On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com
When remote.pushdefault or branch.name.pushremote is set (a triangular
workflow feature), master@{u} != origin, and push.default is set to
`upstream` or `simple`:
$ git
Johan Herland jo...@herland.net writes:
+static void setup_push_current(struct remote *remote, struct branch *branch)
+{
+ if (!branch)
+ die(_(message_detached_head_die), remote-name);
+ add_refspec(branch-name);
Here (and above) we add a refspec to tell Git
Johan Herland wrote:
An earlier round of this change by mistake broke the safety for
simple mode we have had since day 1 of that mode to make sure that
the branch in the repository we update is set to be the one we fetch
and integrate with, but it has been fixed.
Shouldn't there be an
Johan Herland jo...@herland.net writes:
An earlier round of this change by mistake broke the safety for
simple mode we have had since day 1 of that mode to make sure that
the branch in the repository we update is set to be the one we fetch
and integrate with, but it has been fixed.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Johan Herland jo...@herland.net writes:
An earlier round of this change by mistake broke the safety for
simple mode we have had since day 1 of that mode to make sure that
the branch in the repository we update is set to
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Johan Herland wrote:
+static void setup_push_current(struct remote *remote, struct branch
*branch)
+{
+ if (!branch)
+ die(_(message_detached_head_die), remote-name);
+
Johan Herland wrote:
But then, does it make sense to
say that we will only ever have exactly _one_ push refspec in the
current context, and we should therefore replace the static const
char **refspec; string array with a single static const char
*refspec; string? That would make it obvious
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com
When remote.pushdefault or branch.name.pushremote is set (a triangular
workflow feature), master@{u} != origin, and push.default is set to
`upstream` or `simple`:
$ git push
fatal: You are pushing to remote 'origin', which is not the upstream of
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Decouple `simple` from `upstream` completely, and change it to mean
`current` with a safety feature: a `push` and `pull` should not be
asymmetrical in the special case of central workflows.
Double negation confused my parser. 'push' and 'pull' should be
kept
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Decouple `simple` from `upstream` completely, and change it to mean
`current` with a safety feature: a `push` and `pull` should not be
asymmetrical in the special case of central workflows.
Double negation confused my
From: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Decouple `simple` from `upstream` completely, and change it to mean
`current` with a safety feature: a `push` and `pull` should not be
Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org writes:
From: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Double negation confused my parser. 'push' and 'pull' should be
kept symmetrical in central
Junio C Hamano wrote:
They're not the same thing. It is very much intentional and intended:
the safety net is not to ensure that the push and pull are
symmetrical (i.e. among other things, error out if
branch.$branch.merge is unset), but rather ensure that the push and
pull are never
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Without any configuration the current branch is pushed out, which
loosens the safety we implemented in the current 'safer upstream'.
I am not convinced this is a good change. I am not convinced this is
a bad
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
They're not the same thing. It is very much intentional and intended:
the safety net is not to ensure that the push and pull are
symmetrical (i.e. among other things, error out if
branch.$branch.merge is unset), but
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Like you said, I do not want to contaminate this series with such an
unrelated change. Worse, you are trying to break a sane default by
replacing it with anything goes.
We already have a sane default, which is to error out. We do not
need your
When remote.pushdefault or branch.name.pushremote is set (a triangular
workflow feature), master@{u} != origin, and push.default is set to
`upstream` or `simple`:
$ git push
fatal: You are pushing to remote 'origin', which is not the upstream of
your current branch 'master', without telling
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
When remote.pushdefault or branch.name.pushremote is set (a triangular
workflow feature), master@{u} != origin, and push.default is set to
`upstream` or `simple`:
$ git push
fatal: You are pushing to remote 'origin', which is not the
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Without any configuration the current branch is pushed out, which
loosens the safety we implemented in the current 'safer upstream'.
I am not convinced this is a good change. I am not convinced this is
a bad change, either, yet, but this loosening
19 matches
Mail list logo