On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 09:18:25AM +0000, Jørgen Edelbo wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Johannes Sixt [mailto:j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: 5. september 2013 10:57 > > > > Please do not top-post. > > > > Am 9/5/2013 10:29, schrieb Jørgen Edelbo: > > > -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Sixt > > >> Am 9/2/2013 10:54, schrieb Joergen Edelbo: > > >>> Changes done: > > >>> > > >>> Remove selection of branches to push - push always HEAD. This can be > > >>> justified by the fact that this far the most common thing to do. > > >> > > >> What are your plans to support a topic-based workflow? "Far the most > > >> common thing to happen" is that someone forgets to push completed > > >> topics. With this change, aren't those people forced to relinguish > > >> their current work because they have to checkout the completed topics > > >> to push them? > > > > > > I am not quite sure what your concern is. > > > > When I have completed topics A and B, but forgot to push them, and now I > > am working on topic C, how do I push topics A and B? > > > > You say I can only push HEAD. I understand this that I have to stop work on C > > (perhaps commit or stash any unfinished work), then checkout A, push it, > > checkout B, push it, checkout C and unstash the unfinished work. If my > > understanding is correct, the new restriction is a no-go. > > Ok, this way of working is not supported. It just never occurred to me that > you would work this way. Forgetting to push something that you have just > completed is very far from what I am used to. I think it comes most natural > to push what you have done before changing topic. The reason I make a commit > is to get it out of the door. FWIW, I also think that we should keep the box which allows you to select the branch to push. I did not realize that you were removing it when I first glanced at your patch. Even if your reasoning that pushing the currently checked out branch is correct: This box has been around for too long, so it will annoy people that got used to the fact that they can select the branch to push. Another problem: It is not very intuitive to only select the branch to push to. You can do that on the command line but IMO using git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/<branchname> is way less common than git push origin <branchname> and I think that should also be reflected in the gui. It might be more common for a gerrit user but for the typical git user without gerrit it is not. So to make it easy for the user to transition from gui to commandline and back with your patch I would expect: The user selects a branch to push. The new "Destination Branches" section automatically selects/shows the same name for the default case as destination (like the cli). So if I only select the branch to push it behaves the same as before. If you detect (I assume that is possible somehow) that the remote is a gerrit remote: "Push for Gerrit review" would automatically be ticked and the branch a git pull would merge (e.g. the one from branch.<name>.merge) is selected as the destination branch under refs/for/... . If there is no config for that, fallback to "master". This is what I would expect with no further extension of the current git command line behavior and config options. So that way your patch will be an *extension* and not a change of behavior. Another unrelated thing that is currently left out: You can transport the local branchname when pushing to the magical gerrit refs/for/... . I would like to see that appended as well. But opposed to the branch selection that is not a show stopper for the patch more a side note. Cheers Heiko -- 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