John Tapsell <johnflux@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 2009/2/25 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> Having an easy way to ask to push only one branch (typically the currently >> checked-out one) is a good thing. You can obviously say "git push origin >> master" (or whatever branch you are on). We also added "git push origin >> HEAD". I thought we even added "git push HEAD" or "git push --current", >> but I may be mistaken. >> >> But if you are talking about changing the default when "git push" is run >> without any parameter, I have to say it is a terrible idea, for two >> reasons, and one is too obvious to state so I wouldn't repeat it and talk >> only about the other one. > > Presumably the obvious is that it might be confusing to existing > users? Perhaps, but it doesn't cause any damage. It's moving to a > 'safer' default. No, it is not merely confusing but is outright dangerous to people who expect the "matching refs" behaviour. It is not safer at all. For example, I almost always have some topic branch checked out and working on changes that are still not in any of my integration branches. The workflow is to first finish topics to satisfaction, merge the ones that are ready into their respective integration branches, and in other work trees (created by contrib/workdir/git-new-workdir) run the whole build and test cycle for them in the background. While waiting for them to build and verified, the repository I primarily work in will have a checkout of some other uncooked topic branch that I have no intention to push out yet because I am still working on it. After a while, the background build and test will complete and all integration branches prove themselves to be ready to be pushed out, and I can say "git push", fully expecting that the "matching refs" behaviour will push out the integration branches and nothing else, because they are the only ones I have on the public side for people (either git or day-job) to look at. I would never want "push current branch" to send the uncooked topic branch, which I would never want to have on the other side even if it is fully cooked. Even when I am on 'master', when I push things out, I do not want to hear from people that I have been forgetting to push out integration branches other than 'master' only because you suddenly changed the default under me after a few days. Please don't talk about changing the default without thinking the ramifications through. >> I've noticed that people who ask for such a default tend to push too often >> and worse they tend to push before they have their act together. Surely >> their other branches may not be ready, but it is likely their current >> branch isn't either ;-) > > You're against making push affect only the current branch in order to > punish people who push too often? Okaaay.. "Too often" is not a problem by itself per-se, but "still broken" certainly is, and "not thought through" also is to a certain degree. You often see people commit and push out an early part of a series, and then later regret that they realize the approach in these initial segment does not pan out and another avenue was much better, but it is too late to take them back and rebase. And there unfortunately is a correlation between "too often" and the other two. Not very strong correlation with "still broken", but moderately strong correlation with "not thought through". And this is not about punishing. It is about getting into a different mindset. Unlike CVS/SVN, committing and publishing can be made into different phases with git, and not pushing too early allows you produce a lot better results. "I want to push only this branch" is often (not always, but "often" stands with strong correlation) a sign that other things are not ready, and by definition you couldn't have thought through interactions between what you _think_ is ready (i.e. the current branch) and the other ones that are not ready. In other words, it is about encouraging people to think things through before publishing. >> If you shoot for the least damage for such people, the sanest default for >> "git push" would be to do nothing. You *always* say what to push where, >> then there is no risk of pushing something you did not intend to. Perhaps >> "push.default = never" configuration may not be such a bad idea? > > That wouldn't be a terrible idea, although perhaps a bit strange. I would say that is the sanest default, and I often wish people in the git training industry never teach "git push" without $remote and $refs parameter to new people until they understand what they are doing. You can add words other than 'never' to the repertoire, such as 'current', or 'matching'. I think the configuration actually should be "remote.<name>.push", not "push.default", though. Oh, and the value 'current' can be spelled as 'HEAD' already there. -- 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
