Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Then the rule is not really "act only if upstream and current would do
> the same thing".
Right. That would be closer to "fail with explicit error when where to
push is not clear enough".
> On the one hand, I think what you are suggesting is reasonable in most
> cases. On the other hand, what if the lack of upstream is because the
> user failed to configure it properly? Then it could be surprising.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either way.
No strong opinion either, but I wanted to raise the point to make sure
we agree.
With your patch, "git push" fails with
fatal: The current branch branch-name has no upstream branch.
To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
git push --set-upstream origin branch-name
so it's not really bad: the suggestion guides the user to a situation
where the next "git push" will succeed unambiguously. As a side effect,
the next "git pull" will fetch from the same branch, which is probably
what the user wants if he hasn't explicitely configured an upstream
branch yet.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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