On Feb 9, 2008 4:24 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is there anything wrong with "git push $there $branch_name"? This works, but is rather verbose to type all the time. > $ git push origin HEAD > > and you are done. No need to spell out the long branch name you > are currently on. Didn't know this was meant to work. I'll give it a go. > I do not know if this was part of the last round of patches, but > I suspect it is not a problem to allow > > $ git push HEAD > > if it is unambiguous. That is, "HEAD? Do we have such a remote > nickname? No. Then can we default to 'origin' and use it as > the ref to push? Yeah, we can, so the user meant 'git push > origin HEAD'". If I can say git push HEAD it will be nice. Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it really means "stale". And I don't completely follow how bad the impact of auto-fast-forwarding local tracking branches on a merge. If it's a fast-forward, my "local state" wasn't that exciting to begin with ;-) and revlogs can potentially rescue my olden state (but what's the use case for the local state being interesting, anyway?). Yes - user state is important, but something that resolves to a fast-forward means that the user state, whatever it is, is in sync with the repo. As per the subject, these are minor annoyances. The whole remotes+local heads setup works like a charm ;-) cheers, m - 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
