Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Junio, looks like from the 2013 discussion that you preferred just
>> having that mention in parenthesis instead of its own item, how about
>> just re-applying your fa23348 (with conflicts resolved)?
>
> (fa23348 did this:
> --- a/Documentation/config.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/config.txt
> @@ -1749,7 +1749,8 @@ push.default::
> +
> This is currently the default, but Git 2.0 will change the default
> to `simple`.
> -* `upstream` - push the current branch to its upstream branch.
> +* `upstream` - push the current branch to its upstream branch
> + (`tracking` is a deprecated synonym for this).
> )
>
> I agree that doing the same thing is the best option.
Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to this thread.
It seems that 87a70e4ce8 ("config doc: rewrite push.default
section", 2013-06-19) removed that mention by accident? The log
message of the commit does not say it actively wanted to remove
mention of `tracking` and/or why it wanted to do so, so I agree that
resurrecting that parenthetical mention is the easiest course of
action at this point.
However.
With today's description of push.default choices, each of which is a
full fledged paragraph, I no longer have the objection I had in
https://public-inbox.org/git/7vip6dgmx2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
against having `tracking` as a separate bullet item. If we add
* `tracking` - a deprecated synonym for `upstream`; do not use this.
to today's list, it would stand out as something different from
others and it will not cause the confusion I feared in the
discussion we had in early 2013. As Jonathan Nieder argued in the
thread back then, having it as one of the bullet point would help
people locate it without using "search" \C-s or / feature.