On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:38 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:33:37AM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
Maybe. I know git quite well now and in a shared workflow "git pull"
with auto-fast-forward would help me. I often need to run "for each
local branch: git checkout ; git merge" to get rid of the errors
reported by "git push".
Hm. There's gotta be more efficient ways to do that. Maybe "git
push .
origin/branch:branch" for each local "branch"?
But I'm still a little confused why you don't just want to "git push
name-of-branch" and avoid the whole problem.
There are two points:
- The current implementation of "git push" creates a remote branch
if it does not yet exist. I want a safety net: "git push" only pushes
if the remote branch already exists. In a sense "git push" is safer
than "git push branch-with-typo". I use "git push branchname"
exclusively for _creating_ new branches on the remote.
- Sometimes I updated two local branches and want to push. "git push"
just works.
I started to believe that "git push" should always do the right
thing. Maybe it is not possible, but actually "git push" always
does the right thing for me if I ignore the error messages
about local branches that need merging. I tend to merge all
such branches right away, although it is a bit of a hassel.
Otherwise, there will be a day I'll miss an important error.
What concerns me more is how to explain the behaviour to others.
Right now, I can't tell them that "git push" just works but need
to go into a lot of details.
Steffen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
