On 04/23/2012 10:38 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
[...] A question is whether to allow pushing when no upstream is configured. An argument in favor of allowing the push is that it makes the new mode work in more cases. On the other hand, refusing to push when no upstream is configured encourages the user to set the upstream, which will be beneficial on the next pull. Lacking better argument, we chose to deny the push, because it will be easier to change in the future if someone shows us wrong.
I like your conservative approach to this decision. I agree that a push that would create a new branch on the remote server should fail if no upstream is configured.
But what do people think about letting push succeed when no upstream is configured *provided that* there is already a branch on the remote server with the same name as the current branch? I think this policy would cover the bulk of "safe" scenarios without adding dangerous/ambiguous ones.
Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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