Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > >> And yes, a regular `git push origin refs/for/master` is just retarded. > > The usual incantation is "git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/master". Is > the code review creation push that uses a different branchname from > the branch the integrator pulls what seems backward, or is it the need > to specify a refname at all on the command line?
How else would you design a system to differentiate between a push-for-review, and push-to-update-ref? On a slightly unrelated note, it would be nice if we could streamline the git-format-patch, git-send-email process. Let's say we make it a push', which has a pre-hook that fires up the $EDITOR for a cover letter. Wouldn't you love it if this push' would update refs on your private fork and fire off emails to the Git List? Bonus for contrib/: fetch the Google address book, and allow me to auto-complete names when sending emails. > I agree that a "[branch "master"] pushremote" configuration would be > handy. pushremote instead of remotepush to be less surprising to > people who have already seen pushurl. Thanks for that, by the way (used in RFC patch). My taste in variable names is a little sour. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
