From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: explain push.default option a bit more Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:01:46 +0200 Message-ID: <4F923F3A.7050701@alum.mit.edu> References: <1334933944-13446-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> <1334933944-13446-2-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> <20120420201357.GA13103@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F922ECC.4040103@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff King , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 21 07:02:15 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SLSSc-0005nB-BD for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:02:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752108Ab2DUFCJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:02:09 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:50947 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531Ab2DUFCH (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:02:07 -0400 X-Envelope-From: mhagger@alum.mit.edu Received: from [192.168.69.140] (p4FC0D9A1.dip.t-dialin.net [79.192.217.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id q3L51k8V026230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:01:46 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 04/21/2012 06:08 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: >> "Atomic" implies that either the whole push succeeds or the whole push >> fails, and that readers will never see part of the push. > > Oh, I didn't mean "atomic" in that strict sense. After all this was a > description at the workflow level--what the human user perceives. That's what I suspected. Given that the word "atomic", for technical people, has a strict meaning that is not met here, and for non-technical people probably only means "nuclear", I suggest that the word be avoided in this explanation. Perhaps > * `matching` - push all branches having the same name in both ends. > This is for those who prepare all the branches into a publishable > shape and push them out atomically, and suitable when pushing to a > non-shared repository. [...] could be changed to > * `matching` - push all branches having the same name in both ends. > This allows those who prepare all the branches into a publishable > shape to push them out to a non-shared repository with a single > command. [...] Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/