Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> And yes, a regular `git push origin refs/for/master` is just retarded.
> The usual incantation is "git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/master".  Is
> the code review creation push that uses a different branchname from
> the branch the integrator pulls what seems backward, or is it the need
> to specify a refname at all on the command line?

How else would you design a system to differentiate between a
push-for-review, and push-to-update-ref?

On a slightly unrelated note, it would be nice if we could streamline
the git-format-patch, git-send-email process.  Let's say we make it a
push', which has a pre-hook that fires up the $EDITOR for a cover
letter.  Wouldn't you love it if this push' would update refs on your
private fork and fire off emails to the Git List?  Bonus for contrib/:
fetch the Google address book, and allow me to auto-complete names
when sending emails.

> I agree that a "[branch "master"] pushremote" configuration would be
> handy.  pushremote instead of remotepush to be less surprising to
> people who have already seen pushurl.

Thanks for that, by the way (used in RFC patch).  My taste in variable
names is a little sour.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to