Finn Arne Gangstad wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Finn Arne Gangstad wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
[...]
Before going on, can you explain your use case for --push=tracking
(in a case where --push=current wouldn't do the same)?
The idea with "tracking" is to push the current branch to wherever it
would pull from, making push & pull "equivalent" in some sense.
This is different from "current" if you have/choose to name the local
branch something else than the remote branch. This happens a lot when
using multiple remotes.
E.g. some remotes have only a single active branch called "master",
and you have to name it something else locally, or several people have
local branches called "beta", and you have to name it something like
"fred-beta" locally if you are working on fred's beta.
Umm. Why not name it after the feature you're working on instead of the
branch you started from? That way, you get fred/beta (assuming you've
added Fred's repo as a remote named "fred" ofcourse) and all your
branches have names that never (in theory) clash with any of your
upstreams.
Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but: The point is that you
can not name it the same as on the remote. So the names are different,
and --current will not work.
I think our workflows differ quite drastically, as I very rarely see
the need to push more than one branch. When I do, it's for repositories
where I'm the ultimate upstream, so I only have one remote that I
actually *can* push to at all.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.
--
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