Tao Klerks <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If they branched from a different-name remote branch (they created an > new / independent local branch), then no remote tracking relationship > will have been set up, and instead of the "fatal: The upstream branch > of your current branch does not match > the name of your current branch" error and advice, they will get a > much simpler error and advice: > > --- > fatal: The current branch whatevs has no upstream branch. > To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use > > git push --set-upstream origin whatevs > --- > > When they follow those instructions, they will be in the "simple" > setup same as if they had just branched from same-name. Which means that they need to see an error once, offered to either set push.default or branch.autosetupmerge (it is not "and/or", but "or", because you want to tell them to set "instead of push.default, set branch.autosetupmerge"), and if they follow the latter, they have to then hit a different error and be told to do the "set-upstream" individually. I am wondering if that is more irritating than it is worth. Instead, if you tell them to use branch.autosetupmerge=simple and use push.default to something better than simple, wouldn't that cover more cases and give fewer roadblocks to the end-user with unnecessary errors? >> Setting the latter to 'simple' >> means there are *MORE* branches that do not have .remote/.merge set >> up, doesn't it? Which in turn means that we are relying more on >> what push.default is set to, right? > > No Why no? if setupauto is yes, then any new branch forked from a remote-tracking branch will get .remote/.merge set up, and with these specific configuration they can "push" back to the configured place. If it is set to simple, only new branches forked from a remote-tracking branch that happens to have the same name will get it, and others do not get .remote/.merge set up. Which means user's "git push" will then consult push.default settings, and setting it right becomes more important, no?
