Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07 2021, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> Disambiguating that is one of the reasons we prefix with the remote > >> name, but I'd say it makes for a confusing example in a commit message, > >> and also if instead of saying: > >> > >> branch: make -v useful > >> > >> It said e.g.: > >> > >> branch: reverse the priority of what -v and -vv show > > > > I guess that depends on what you consider this patch is doing, why, and how. > > > > But I have no problem with your version. > > > >> Or something similar to note that it's not "useful" now, but an > >> opinionated change about what we should show on verbosity level 1 and 2. > > > > I'm not sure I parsed that correctly, but that's the whole point: > > verbosity level 1 is not very useful (I'd argue not useful at all). > > Maybe, anyway I meant to suggest saying something approaching "reverse > the order of the data we consider important" instead of the equivalent > of "make the data useful". All right, that transmits the message I want to transmit and is less abrasive, so that's good. I've updated the title, and in fact changed the whole commit message. > >> Whereas you are presumably tracking origin/master for some, building on > >> your own topic (or other people's topics) for another etc., I think that > >> workflow is much rarer outside of linux.git and git.git, and even for > >> those most people usually track origin/master with most of their topics. > > > > That's an unsupported assumption. > > > > As I showed above, most pople track the branch they push to, not > > origin/master. > > > > Google "git branch -v", and you will find mostly official documentation > > and man pages. > > > > Google "git branch -vv", and you will find mostly blog posts, Stack > > Overflow questions, and cheat sheets. > > > > I think the reason why is obvious. > > Yes, I stand corrected. > > For what it's worth I think one thing to salvage from my ill-informed > rambling is that I was under that impression because I set > push.default=upstream. > > But yes, with "simple" being the default and refusing to have > avar/my-topic have an upstream of origin/master my setup is probably not > the common case. This is one of the reasons I force myself to have a .gitconfig as clean as possible; to try to emulate as much as possible the experience of the typical git user. Having used push.default=simple for many years now, I find it very suboptimal. Basically I can't trust git to do the right thing, and I always specify what to push. I suspect this is what most users do (unless they have setup upstream like `git push -u`). For what it's worth, when there's a difference of opinion in the mailing list sometimes I create polls in reddit to see what the users think, and I did for this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/git/comments/nuf3p5/where_do_you_point_your_upstream_branch_to/ At the moment 13 people say they use origin/master, 11 repo/branch, and 11 say they it's the same thing in their case (e.g. origin/dev). 8 people don't know what an upstream branch is. > I wonder if this should depend on the setting of push.default, or > whether we can infer anything at all from that setting. After all you > can set it to whatever and then either manually do "git push <remote> > <src>:<dst>" (my usual worklow is just "git push origin HEAD"), or > manually do the "git rebase origin/master" or whatever in the case where > your upstream is your own topic branch. I do have a much better solution that makes everything work for all configurations, but the patches are not ready yet, and I'm certain will receive pushback, just like the last time I sent it. This is the first patch, which I don't think has anything to do with the rest of the patches, and can very well stand on its own. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
