Like how "pull" is "fetch" + "merge", I think it would be useful to have a "commit" + "push". I have the general feeling that this is more like what users of other version control systems expect to have happen, and it's easy, when working on a non-network-accessible workstation, to commit and forget to do anything with the commit before leaving. So I'm considering a "git-publish" which is the trivial "git commit $* && git push". My suspicion is that most people who run commit directly and have a default push location tend to want to push after every commit (or, at least, be fine with that, and really want to have pushed after the last of a batch). (Of course, there are plenty of users who don't want to push so often, but I bet they either mostly generate commits with git apply, git am, or such, or they don't have a push line and publicize their changes with format-patch.) Actually, I'm also curious as to how other people generate the series of commits for a patch series, when they've actually got a working directory that contains the end result. I doubt that people actually do their modifications in patch order, committing each time, without writing and testing the end result. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html