Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: introduce implicit push

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

 



On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:39:40AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:59 AM, John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > So the question is "what is the natural extension of the current
> > behaviour?", and the answer for me is "it's completely new", but others
> > have different (and conflicting) internal models that give different
> > answers.
> 
> I don't think this does anybody any service. If the current behavior
> is wrong, and if users all over the Internet is any indication, it is;
> we do not want to continue such bad behavior. If the new
> functionality has a different behavior, it only makes sense to change
> the old behavior to make it consistent.

The current "push.default = matching" behaviour may be wrong, but I
haven't seen anyone say that the fundamental "'git push' does something
depending on push.default" and "'git push there ref...' specifies
exactly what to do" is broken.
--
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]