On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:32:10AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> > we should leave @{upstream} as (1), and add a new option to represent
> > (2). Not the other way around.
> I have a local branch 'forkedfrom' that has two "sources": 'master'
> and 'ram/forkedfrom'. 'ram/forkedfrom' isn't a "dumb" publish-point:
> the relationship information I get between 'forkedfrom' and
> 'ram/forkedfrom' is very useful; it's what helps me tell how my
> re-roll is doing with respect to the original series; I'd often want
> to cherry-pick commits/ messages from my original series to prepare
> the re-roll, so interaction with this source is quite high. On the
> other hand, the relationship information I get between 'forkedfrom'
> and 'master' is practically useless: 'forkedfrom' is always ahead of
> 'master', and a divergence indicates that I need to rebase; I'll never
> really need to interact with this source.

Thanks for a concrete example.

I definitely respect the desire to reuse the existing tooling we have
for @{u}. At the same time, I think you are warping the meaning of
@{u} somewhat. It is _not_ your upstream here, but rather another
version of the branch that has useful changes in it. That might be
splitting hairs a bit, but I think you will find that the differences
leak through in inconvenient spots (like format-patch, where you really
_do_ want to default to the true upstream).

If we add "@{publish}" (and "@{pu}"), then it becomes very convenient to
refer to the ram/ version of your branch. That seems like an obvious
first step to me. We don't have to add new config, because
"branch.*.pushremote" already handles this.

Now you can do "git rebase @{pu}" which is nice, but not _quite_ as nice
as "git rebase", which defaults to "@{u}". That first step might be
enough, and I'd hold off there and try it out for a few days or weeks
first. But if you find in your workflow that you are having to specify
"@{pu}" a lot, then maybe it is worth adding an option to default rebase
to "@{pu}" instead of "@{u}".

You end up in the same place ("git rebase" without options does what you
want), but I think the underlying data more accurately represents what
is going on (and there is no need to teach "format-patch" anything

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