Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > The issue of "many refs in the repo but I work only on a few" has already > been resolved by being able to say "I push only the current branch" in the > previous thread, I think, but I am too busy to go back to re-study the > history, so could you kindly do that for us? I almost agreed with Pierre before I read your response, but as always you are right. If the only thing I know is that my current branch is ready to be pushed and I do not know if other branches are, I do not have to push all branches (I am not sure how exactly it works. Do we push all the branches, or do we push branches that exist on both sides?). Pushing the one I want to push is the right thing to do, and I can easily say it. > You might argue that the case where you are truly behind _could_ be > ignored and pretend as if the user did not even _ask_ to push it (hence, > return success without doing anything to that branch), but I am not > convinced even that is a good idea. But I think that is a reasonable new feature and is close to what Pierre is asking for. He wants to be able to push "all except for the ones that he does not want to push", wants git to guess which ones are the ones he does not, and wants to make the logic of guessing to consider stale ones are unwanted. But I do agree with you that it is wrong to replace existing "push all" with such a new feature. When people want to push all, they do want to push all and see the command report error when some branches are not updated. Even though I think what Pierre wants to have may be a reasonable new feature, it should not break "push all" for people who rely on the existing behavior. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ -- 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
