Junio C Hamano wrote: > From: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:43:47 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/git-push.txt: correct configuration typo > > In the EXAMPLES section, git-push(1) says that 'git push origin' pushes > the current branch to the value of the 'remote.origin.merge' > configuration. > > This wording (which dates back to b2ed944af7 (push: switch default from > "matching" to "simple", 2013-01-04)) is incorrect. There is no such > configuration as 'remote.<name>.merge'. This likely was originally > intended to read "branch.<name>.merge" instead. > > Indeed, when 'push.default' is 'simple' (which is the default value, and > is applicable in this scenario per "without additional configuration"), > setup_push_upstream() dies if the branch's local name does not match > 'branch.<name>.merge'. > > Correct this long-standing typo to resolve some recent confusion on the > intended behavior of this example. > > Reported-by: Adam Sharafeddine <adam.shrfdn@xxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Fabien Terrani <terranifabien@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/git-push.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Looks good. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt > index ab103c82cf..a953c7c387 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt > @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ EXAMPLES > > `git push origin`:: > Without additional configuration, pushes the current branch to > - the configured upstream (`remote.origin.merge` configuration > + the configured upstream (`branch.<name>.merge` configuration > variable) if it has the same name as the current branch, and > errors out without pushing otherwise. >From the discussion it seems this sentence has further room for improvement, but that shouldn't block this straightforward typofix patch. A few ideas for further improvement: - I think "the configured upstream" would read more clearly as "its configured upstream" - the parenthesis could be a little clearer by adding a verb --- e.g. "as determined by the `branch.<name>.merge` configuration variable". Alternatively, is that implementation detail the right thing to mention? Perhaps we could instead say something like "as configured using git branch --set-upstream-to" as a way to introduce the concept of a branch's upstream. - the "it" in "it has the same name" is vague. Does a branch's upstream represent the remote-tracking branch (e.g., refs/remotes/origin/main) it merges or rebases against, or does it represent the remote branch (e.g., refs/heads/main in the remote repository pointed to by origin) it pulls from? Putting those together, I could imagine something along the lines of Without additional configuration, this first checks that the current branch's configured upstream (see git-branch(1) --set-upstream-to) is a remote branch with the same name and then pushes there. If there is no configured upstream or the configured upstream has a different name, it errors out without pushing. Thanks, Jonathan
