Matt McCutchen wrote:
> The only potentially confusing behavior was that git defaulted to
> pushing all branches. Given that, the push failed due to a concurrent
> change to a different branch on the destination, and it was necessary to
> switch to that branch in order to perform the merge (well, rebase, but
> the difference isn't important here). I see nothing arcane, exotic,
> bizarre, or broken about that. And I don't think I would change the
> default push behavior: I can envision forgetting to push a change to a
> non-current branch until someone complains about it.
The whole idea of having more than one branch in a checkout is confusing. I
really don't see why I'd want to have a complete clone of the repository on
my HDD rather than a working copy which contains all I actually work on (the
current revision of one branch; if I work on multiple branches, that's what
directories on my file system are for). (And this is another reason why I
consider DVCSes to be broken by design.)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
