Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> + case PUSH_DEFAULT_MATCHING: >> + case PUSH_DEFAULT_CURRENT: >> + return branch->refname; > > Here I follow the logic of branch_get_push1, but the case of > push.default=matching is not quite correct, because we never check > that we have a matching remote branch. On the other hand we cannot check > this until we contact the remote, so I don't know how we could get around > that. Quite honestly, I do not think that is a problem that needs to be solved; there is no workable definition.
