On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 08:35:07PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> I don't know, seems logical to me what 'git remote sync' does, but >> 'git push sync'? That sounds weird, and there are no 'git push foo' >> commands. > > What I don't understand is why it is not: > > git push --mirror <URL|remote> Because that pushes *everything*. >> > And how does this differ from "git push --mirror"? It looks like you >> > have more options for what pushing all versus pruning, but wouldn't it >> > be better for "git push" to grow those options? >> >> But how? --mirror is just an option, I want a separate command, with >> it's own options. > > That's what I don't understand from your proposal. Your command is just > pushing something to the remote, right? Why isn't "push" the command, > and your sync options become options to push? How exactly? --sync-prune, --sync-new, --sync-all? But actually, I was thinking on adding an option to sync the other way around; to get all the remote branches and have them locally. > Can you step back and describe the problem you're trying to solve? Maybe > we're not connecting there. Well, I usually have quite a lot of branches in my local repositories, like a dozen of so. And I like to back them up in some remote repository, however, not all the branches all the time. git push --mirror not only pushes branches, but also tags (and I don't want that), and even other refs. Does that clarifies things? -- Felipe Contreras -- 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