On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 06:04:39PM +0200, Damien Robert wrote:
> Heres what happen with such a triangular workflow when we do a `git push`:
> - with push.default=simple, we have
> case PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE:
> if (triangular)
> setup_push_current(remote, branch);
> else
> setup_push_upstream(remote, branch, triangular, 1);
> break;
> so the current branch is always pushed.
Yeah, otherwise every push to a remote other than origin would require a
refspec. I think with respect to for-each-ref, this "triangular" case
would only kick in if you define remote.pushDefault (since you can't
specify a remote on the command-line).
Though hmm. I guess maybe it could kick in if the upstream of the branch
is on a non-default remote? For push, that would work because
remote_get() will look at the current branch. But of course in
for-each-ref, we're asking speculatively about other branches.
So I think if we want to support this triangular logic in for-each-ref,
we need to have a more careful definition than what's in push.c's
is_workflow_triangular(). I.e., it would probably make sense to consider
it from the position of "if we were on this branch, what would it push".
And ditto for @{push}, I guess.
> - with push.default=upstream, we have
> case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM:
> setup_push_upstream(remote, branch, triangular, 0);
> break;
> which then gives
> if (triangular)
> die(_("You are pushing to remote '%s', which is not the upstream of\n"
> "your current branch '%s', without telling me what to push\n"
> "to update which remote branch."),
>
> By the way this matches what the documentation says.
Yeah. I think in the triangular case (at least as defined in push.c)
we'd always be pushing to the non-upstream, so this die() makes sense.
In for-each-ref, I guess we'd hit this case with remote.pushDefault
again. Without that, we'd always be pushing to the upstream anyway.
> However here is the result of
> git -c push.default=$value for-each-ref --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref),%(push)" refs/heads/master
> for $value=
> - simple: to,,
> - upstream: to,refs/heads/other,refs/remotes/from/other
>
> Note that without my patch the %(push:remoteref) values would always be empty,
> but my patch does not touch %(push).
>
> So in both branch_get_push_1 and branch_get_push_remoteref I should first
> detect if we have a triangular workflow, and update the logic of the code
> accordingly.
Yes, I agree this could be improved. I'm OK leaving that as a separate
fix to your current remoteref work, though.
-Peff
