Junio C Hamano wrote: > Having said that I am not sure where your "not overly fond of" comes > from, as I do not see a problem with branch.<name>.push. The only > problem I may have with the approach would arise _only_ if we make > it the sole way to allow people push to different names, forcing > people who want to push N branches to configure it N times. Other > than that, I think it is an acceptable solution to give per-branch > control.
It doesn't strike me as being elegant at all. [branch "hot-branch"] remote = ram push = refs/heads/for-junio/hot-branch 1. I git branch -M for-each-ref and push. Screwed. 2. Let's say you give me the thumbs up to write hot-branch to origin. Excitedly, I change the remote to origin. Now I already have push semantics for origin (you obviously want me to write to rr/, so I can cooperate with others): [remote "origin"] push = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/rr/* Unfortunately, it doesn't kick in unless I change branch.<name>.push. I guess what I'm saying is: refspec semantics are inherent properties of the remote, not of the local branch. Since there is no intermediate refs/remotes/* sitting between the remote and local branches, this is _not_ like branch.<name>.merge at all. That is why I'm tiling towards remote.<name>.push: we're not giving up any functionality anyway; there's nothing we can't do without branch.<name>.push. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html