From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] push: introduce new push.default mode "simple" Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:32:57 +0200 Message-ID: <4F952FD9.90806@alum.mit.edu> References: <1334933944-13446-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> <1335170284-30768-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> <1335170284-30768-5-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, Jeff King To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 23 12:33:49 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 1SMGaW-00011h-Tf for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:33:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755048Ab2DWKdc (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:33:32 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:44398 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754753Ab2DWKdb (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:33:31 -0400 X-Envelope-From: mhagger@alum.mit.edu Received: from [192.168.101.152] (ssh.berlin.jpk.com [212.222.128.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id q3NAWvrH015238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:32:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1 In-Reply-To: <1335170284-30768-5-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> 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 04/23/2012 10:38 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > [...] > A question is whether to allow pushing when no upstream is configured. An > argument in favor of allowing the push is that it makes the new mode work > in more cases. On the other hand, refusing to push when no upstream is > configured encourages the user to set the upstream, which will be > beneficial on the next pull. Lacking better argument, we chose to deny > the push, because it will be easier to change in the future if someone > shows us wrong. I like your conservative approach to this decision. I agree that a push that would create a new branch on the remote server should fail if no upstream is configured. But what do people think about letting push succeed when no upstream is configured *provided that* there is already a branch on the remote server with the same name as the current branch? I think this policy would cover the bulk of "safe" scenarios without adding dangerous/ambiguous ones. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/