Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I _hate_ the default remote. [...] > > It sounds as if you want to say it a bit stronger than that --- to you, > defaulting to 'origin' is not of "little to no" but "negative" value, is > it? > > But I think we are minotiry. To people with "CVS migrant" workflow, > cloning from _the_ central repo, hacking, and then pushing back will never > involve anything other than 'origin' and local repositories, and I am > sympathetic when they want to say "git push" and have it default to that > single other repository. Yes, I think we are in the minority. Many people come to Git from a centralized system so the idea of just a single place to pull/push from makes perfect sense to them. But then they later wonder why they need `git pull origin branch` to merge in branch, when they usually just say `git pull`. What is the need for that funny keyword `origin`? Why do I have to say where to get the branch from sometimes and not others? I think this argument is like the one we had with `git pull . branch` vs. `git merge branch`. However we probably could have gotten users to accept `git merge . branch`, as the main argument there was the fact that git-merge (the natural command to invoke) didn't actually do what the user wanted, and git-pull did. Just take the above as the rantings of someone who knows git a little too well, and has tried to teach it to people who don't, and they all have asked about the funny (to them) need for origin in git-pull/git-push command line sometimes (no refspecs) and not others (with refspecs). -- Shawn. -- 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
