Jeff King <> writes:

> And even in a centralized workflow, I see "upstream" creating problems.
> E.g., you fork a feature branch in the centralized repo; it should not
> get pushed straight back to "master"! And that is why we invented
> "simple", to prevent such things.

Oh, don't get me wrong.  I personally wouldn't imagine forking
'topic' from the shared 'master', call the result perfect and push
it directly back to the shared 'master'.  But the 'upstream' setting
was added exactly to support that.

In such a case, I would have 'master' that is forked from the shared
'master', 'topic' that is forked from my 'master', and pushing back
would be a two-step process, first updating my 'master' in sync with
the shared 'master', merging 'topic' into it to make sure the result
is sane and then push it back to the shared 'master'.  And in that
set-up, 'upstream' would work fine as the upstream of my 'master' is
the shared 'master', even though 'current' or even 'matching' would
work just as well.  So in that sense, I do not see 'upstream' as so
broken as you seem to be saying.

One gap in that line of thought might be that I am sane enough not
to attempt "git push" while I am on my 'topic', though.
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