Re: Random thoughts on "upstream"

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

 



On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> The value "upstream" for push.default does not make sense in the
>>> context of a triangular workflow, as you may well base your work on
>>> 'master' from the upstream, which is a branch with a very generic
>>> purpose (e.g. "to advance the state of the overall project"), but
>>> your work may have a more specific purpose (e.g. "to improve frotz
>>> feature") that deserves to be on a branch named after that specific
>>> purpose in the repository you publish your work on.  That is, after
>>> working on your 'frotz' branch this way:
>>>
>>>     git checkout -t -b frotz origin/master
>>>     work work work, commit commit commit
>>
>> If the user has branch.autosetupmerge=always, that's not correct; even doing:
>>
>> % git checkout -b frotz origin/master
>>
>> Would setup the upstream. And I believe for v2.0 we do want
>> branch.autosetupmerge=always, but we might not want to always override
>> the push location.
>>
>>> Now I have a curious value "single" in the above configuration that
>>> is not understood by current Git.  It is to trigger a new rule to
>>> modify the way remote.publish.push refspec is used:
>>>
>>>     When on branch 'frotz', where pushremote_get() would return
>>>     'publish', find where refs/heads/frotz would be pushed with the
>>>     refspec for that remote (i.e. refs/heads/*:refs/heads/topics/*
>>>     maps refs/heads/frotz to refs/heads/topics/frotz) and push only
>>>     that, i.e. update refs/heads/topics/frotz over there with the
>>>     tip of 'frotz' we are pushing.
>>>
>>> That may be a solution for those who do not find 'current' good
>>> enough.
>>
>> What happens if I want to push to 'refs/heads/topics/frotz-for-juno'?
>
> You would weigh pros-and-cons of supporting such a "single branch
> only" special case, and add a branch level override, and if the
> benefit outweighs the cost of complexity, design and implement it.

I already implemented it. I already sent the patch.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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]