Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Introduce publish tracking branch

From: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>,
	Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Introduce publish tracking branch
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:15:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <vpqtxa0jkfo.fsf@anie.imag.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1397156686-31349-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:04:37 -0500")

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> As it has been discussed before, our support for triangular workflows is
> lacking, and the following patch series aims to improve that situation.

I'm not a heavy user of triangular workflow, so I'm not in the best
position to comment (and I have no time for a real review, sorry).

On overall, I do like the change. I played a bit with it, and do not
understand what "git push" does:

  $ git status
  On branch master
  Your branch is ahead of 'origin/new' by 4 commits.
    (use "git push" to publish your local commits)

=> OK, it's using the publish branch to tell me whether I should push.

  $ git push -v
  Pushing to /tmp/git
  To /tmp/git
   = [up to date]      master -> master
  updating local tracking ref 'refs/remotes/origin/master'
  Everything up-to-date

=> Err, it still pushes to the upstream branch ... Wasn't that the point
of the change to push to publish? Did I do something wrong?

Your series lacks documentation of branch.<name>.* in
Documentation/config.txt.

It seems strange to me to name the config variables "branch.<name>.push"
and "branch.<name>.pushremote" and call the same thing "@{publish}"
elsewhere. We're already not consistant with @{upstream} corresponding
to branch.<name>.merge, but I do not consider it as a good reason to
introduce one more inconsistancy.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/