Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:05:15AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > As you can see; some branches are published, others are not. The ones that
> > are
> > not published don't have a @{publish}, and `git branch -v` doesn't show
> > them.
> > Why is that hard to understand?
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:05:15AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> As you can see; some branches are published, others are not. The ones that are
> not published don't have a @{publish}, and `git branch -v` doesn't show them.
> Why is that hard to understand?
Do you ever push the unpublished bra
Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:24:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > > But the branch.master.push setting does not do
> > > anything to "git push".
> >
> > I am not sure I understand this. I thought that the desire behind
> > the branch.*.push is to allow something like:
> >
Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:48:01AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > I think of @{publish} as "the branch the user has configured to push
> > to"; it overrides all other configurations (push.default and push
> > refspecs). I wouldn't mind having a @{push} *in addition* to @{p
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:24:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > But the branch.master.push setting does not do
> > anything to "git push".
>
> I am not sure I understand this. I thought that the desire behind
> the branch.*.push is to allow something like:
>
> ... other things in the
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:48:01AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I think of @{publish} as "the branch the user has configured to push
> to"; it overrides all other configurations (push.default and push
> refspecs). I wouldn't mind having a @{push} *in addition* to @{publish}
> that would have t
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > For instance, it looks like your @{publish} requires config like:
> >
> > [branch "master"]
> > pushremote = foo
> > push = refs/heads/bar
> >
> > to operate. Setting "pushremote" affects what "git push" does; it will
> > go to the "foo" remot
Jeff King writes:
> For instance, it looks like your @{publish} requires config like:
>
> [branch "master"]
> pushremote = foo
> push = refs/heads/bar
>
> to operate. Setting "pushremote" affects what "git push" does; it will
> go to the "foo" remote.
OK, and the same thing would happen if
Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 05:36:59PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > > I noticed that this only picks up a publish-branch if
> > > branch.*.pushremote is configured. What happened to the case when
> > > remote.pushdefault is configured?
> >
> > What happens when branch.*.rem
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 05:36:59PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > I noticed that this only picks up a publish-branch if
> > branch.*.pushremote is configured. What happened to the case when
> > remote.pushdefault is configured?
>
> What happens when branch.*.remote is not configured for @{ups
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
>
> Please write a commit message, preferably showing the new git-branch output.
Yeah... this has been sitting in git-fc for quite a while, I wasn't expecting
to send this patch series again given that nobo
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
Please write a commit message, preferably showing the new git-branch output.
I noticed that this only picks up a publish-branch if
branch.*.pushremote is configured. What happened to the case when
remote.pushdefault is configured?
--
To u
12 matches
Mail list logo
