On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Christensen <da...@endpoint.com> wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>>> 6. Finally, you must push your changes back to the server. >>>> >>>> git push >>>> >>>> This will push changes in all branches you've updated, but only branches >>>> that also exist on the remote side will be pushed; thus, you can have >>>> local working branches that won't be pushed. >>>> >>>> ==> This is true, but I have found it saner to configure push.default = >>>> tracking, so that only the current branch is pushes. Some people might >>>> find that useful. >>> >>> Indeed. Why don't I do that more often... >>> >>> +1 on making that a general recommendation, and have people only not >>> do that if they really know what they're doing :-) >> >> Hmm, I didn't know about that option. What makes us think that's the >> behavior people will most often want? Because it doesn't seem like >> what I want, just for one example... > > > So you're working on some back branch, and make a WIP commit so you can > switch to master to make a quick commit. Create a push on master. Bare git > push. WIP commit gets pushed upstream. Oops.
Sure, oops, but I would never do that. I'd stash it or put it on a topic branch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
