On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> # on branch master, derived from origin
>>> $ git push ram
>>> And branch.master.push is set to next? Will you let her shoot herself
>>> in the foot like this?
>> It is not shooting in the foot, if branch.master.push is explicitly
>> set to update next. I do not see any issue in that part.
> The question does not pertain to master being mapped to next; it
> pertains to central-workflow versus triangular-workflow: origin versus
> ram. If the user has set push.default to upstream, she _expects_
> triangular pushes to always be denied, and this is the first violation
> of that rule. I'm tilting towards building a dependency between
> branch.<name>.push and push.default.
I haven't followed this topic closely, and the concern described below
is probably a consequence of that. Please ignore if my worries are
It seems to me like we're adding (or have already added) quite a bit
of config variables and command-line options for specifying (at
varying levels of specificity and overridability) either the remote to
push to ($remote), or what ref to push into on the remote
($remote_ref). It worries me that we allow $remote and $remote_ref to
be set _separately_ and at separate levels of specificity. I wonder if
this too easily allows users to shoot themselves in the foot by
specifying $remote in one place (e.g. on the command line), then (in
their mind - unrelated) specifying $remote_ref in another place (e.g.
branch.foo.push), and then being negatively surprised when the two
conspire to push into the "wrong" $remote and/or $remote_ref.
I haven't yet dug deep enough to figure out an obvious failure mode
(and I probably should not have sent this email until I'd found one),
but I wonder if we'd be better off forcing the $remote and $remote_ref
configuration for a given branch to appear as more of a single unit.
What if, when setting up tracking for a given branch, we immediately
specified its complete pull and push targets?
For example, when in a centralized workflow (e.g. push.default =
upstream) and we're checking out local branch foo from origin's foo,
we could set up the following configuration :
pull = origin/foo
push = origin/foo
In a triangular workflow (assuming we had configuration to specify
such, and also a default push remote), we could then instead set up
the following config:
pull = origin/foo
push = my_public/foo
This leaves no ambiguity for even the most novice user as to the pull
and push targets for a given branch, and it's also easy to change it,
either by editing the config file directly, or by using hypothetical
git branch foo --pulls-from=origin/bar
git branch foo --pushes-to=other_repo/foo
Any "git pull" without arguments will fail if branch.<current>.pull is
unset or invalid. Likewise any "git push" without arguments will fail
if branch.<current>.push is unset or invalid.
Obviously, specifying the remote and/or refspec on the command-line
would still override, as it does today, but for the argument-less
forms of "git pull" and "git push", the hierarchy of options and
defaults being consulted to figure out $remote and $remote_ref would
be small and easily understandable.
: I do realize that I'm abusing the "foo/bar" notation to mean
"$remote/$ref", and that this does not work in the general case where
both remote names and ref names may contain slashes, or when remote
names don't correspond to eponymous ref namespaces...
Johan Herland, <jo...@herland.net>
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