On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 08:47:53AM -0400, Jay Soffian wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think it is important to note that calling them both "origin" is
> > definitely the wrong thing. The proposal is instead that "git push"
> > without a remote would default to something besides "origin". For people
> > who publish multiple places, it might even make sense for it to be an
> > iterative push to each place.
>
> While developing in a particular repo, I constantly have to push to
> two compile machines. I just dropped a Makefile into the top of my
> working tree:
>
> all: push
> amend:
> git amend -a
> git --no-pager diff @{1}
> make push
> push:
> make -j 2 mac win
> mac:
> git push mac
> win:
> git push win
Yeah, I have scripts to help with that sort of thing now. But that is
often an unsatisfactory solution, because either:
1. Your Makefile is not version-controlled.
2. Your are polluting the project history with stuff specific to your
workflow. I would not get very far proposing that git.git's
Makefile contain such a thing. :)
That's how Junio ended up with his "Meta" directory (and I have one,
too, but with drastically different things in it).
-Peff
--
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