Re: Proposal: branch.<name>.remotepush

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

 



Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>>
>>>> And yes, a regular `git push origin refs/for/master` is just retarded.
>>>
>>> The usual incantation is "git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/master".  Is
>>> the code review creation push that uses a different branchname from
>>> the branch the integrator pulls what seems backward, or is it the need
>>> to specify a refname at all on the command line?
>>
>> How else would you design a system to differentiate between a
>> push-for-review, and push-to-update-ref?
>
> You don't have to.
>
> If the reviewed result is merged on the server side and appear on
> 'master', nobody has to push to update refs/heads/master.

I'm sorry, I meant differentiating between push-for-review and
push-for-personal-work.
--
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]