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 symmetrical in central workflows?

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 asymmetrical".

>> 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 smells bad.
> Provided that we would want to keep the "Push the current one to the
> same name but you have to have it set up as your integration source"
> safety for central workflow (which I am starting to think we
> should), we would want something like this on top of your entire
> series, I think.  The behaviour change can be seen in the revert of
> one test you made to the test that expects "simple" to fail due to
> the safety.

Now I'd like to question what you are labelling as "safety".  What is
the consequence of erroring out when branch.$branch.merge is unset
when pushing using `upstream`?  For me, it only means additional
inconvenience: any new branches I create can't be pushed out without
explicitly setting branch.$branch.merge to an "invalid" value.  What
is invalid about it?  The fact that it doesn't exist, @{u} still
doesn't resolve, and git branch -u doesn't work.  Hell, even git push
-u doesn't work!  So, what is this huge "safety" that can justify
inconveniencing me like this?  By making sure that
branch.$branch.merge is set, my prompt responds immediately to
divergence, and this is awesome.  Predictably, I use git push -u when
I push out a new branch with `current`.  So, unless you have a damn
good reason to inconvenience me in the name of safety,
branch.$branch.merge should default to refs/heads/$branch, unless set

I didn't want to contaminate this series with an unrelated improvement
to `upstream`, which is why you don't see the change here: it is
orthogonal to designing a good `simple`, and I only brought it up to
question the "safety" you're carrying over to `simple`; what
obligation does `simple` have to carry over this "feature"?  I've made
it clear that I want a clean break from `upstream`, and I find your
proposal is very inelegant: `simple` has two modes of operation; when
branch.$branch.remote is equal to $pushremote, branch.$branch.merge
must be set and equal to $branch (the `upstream` mode); when
branch.$branch.remote is unequal to $pushremote, don't care about
whether branch.$branch.merge is set (the `current` mode).  My proposal
is much smoother than this "modal" operation, no?
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

Reply via email to