Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > If the conclusion of the discussion is that we will change the default,
> > the transition to the new default will go like this:
> 
> I am in general agreement with the course of action outlined. There is
> one little thing I had expected in addition, that is not discussed:
> 
>  --force should change behaviour, immediately, to "current" or even
> none (forcing the user to name the remote and branch explicitly).
> 
> The potential for messups with --force combined with "matching" and a
> repo that allows it is considerable. And I cannot imagine any
> mainstream use cases for --force defaulting to matching; at least none
> important enough to counterbalance the damage.

Well, one can always use

  git push <remote> +:

instead of

  git push --force

for "matching" push... but I think you would have to provide name of
repository.

-- 
Jakub Narebski

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]