Re: push.default: current vs upstream

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:33:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org> writes:
> 
> > So if the problem is that the documentation cues the reader to think
> > about upstreams but not to think about downstreams, the solution is to
> > find excuses to talk more about downstreams.  As far as I'm concerned
> > @{upstream} means "the place that commits come from when I `git pull`",
> > so it makes perfect sense to me that @{downstream} would mean "the place
> > commits go to when I `git push`".
> 
> In a separate message I completely misunderstood what you meant by
> "downstream".

Yeah, I also took it to mean that the "downstream" of your "upstream"
would be where you started (though as you mentioned, it is not 1-to-1,
so that would not work anyway).

But this:

> If you had something like this:
> 
> 	[remote "origin"]
>         	url = ...
>         [remote "destination"]
>                 pushURL = ...
> 
> 	[branch "topic"]
>         	remote = origin
>                 merge = refs/heads/master
> 		pushRemote = destination # new
>                 push = refs/heads/topic # new
> 
> you could express that asymmetric layout in a natural way.  When you say
> "git push" while on your "topic" branch, it will go to "destination"
> remote to update their "topic" branch.

is much more useful (and I already complained about the lack of
something like pushRemote recently). I just think it should not be
called "downstream", as it is not the reverse of upstream.

-Peff