Mathias Kunter wrote:
> Am 30.05.21 um 21:09 schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >>> The current branch is pushed to the corresponding upstream branch, but
> >>> as a safety measure, the push is aborted if the upstream branch does not
> >>> have the same name as the local one.
> >
> > Except that isn't accurate.
> >
> > git clone $url
> > git checkout -b fix-1
> > # do commits
> > git push
> >
> > Does that push the current branch to the corresponding upstream branch?
>
> I see. Then maybe reword to something like this:
>
> > The current branch is pushed to a branch with the same name on the
> > remote, but as a safety measure, the push is aborted if a corresponding
> > upstream branch does not have the same name as the local one.
>
> In your above example, I'm in centralized workflow, but I can still push
> the fix-1 branch to origin without having to configure an upstream
> branch for it.
No, you can't:
% git push
fatal: The current branch fix-1 has no upstream branch.
To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
git push --set-upstream origin fix-1
Isn't that problem the one you originally described [1]?
The behavior doesn't change if you don't specify the remote:
`git push` == `git push origin`.
> So this seems to contradict with the currently proposed
> wording:
>
> > If you are working on a centralized workflow, then you need to configure
> > an upstream branch with the same name.
My wording is correct, and that's precisely the problem.
Maybe you are thinking this patch series implements the fix I proposed:
it doesn't.
The two patch series merely reorganizes the code to make it simpler and
easier to understand. No functionality changes.
Cheers.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/065528bf-b496-83d3-767d-2a78e50a9edf@xxxxxxxxx
--
Felipe Contreras
