Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> Yes, "pushbranch" is probably a better name for what I am referring to.
> I agree that pushremote is probably enough for sane cases. I seem to
> recall that people advocating the "upstream" push-default thought that
> branch name mapping was a useful feature, but I might be
> mis-remembering. I will let those people speak up for the feature if
> they see fit; it seems somewhat crazy to me.
I think "branch mapping" you recall are for those who want to push
their 'topic' to 'review/topic' or something like that. With Git
post 7cdebd8a (Merge branch 'jc/push-refmap', 2013-12-27), I think
"remote.*.push" can be used to implement that, by the way.
>> Frankly, I don't use full triangular workflows myself mainly because
>> my prompt is compromised: when I have a branch.*.remote different from
>> branch.*.pushremote, I'd like to see where my branch is with respect
>> to @{u} and @{publish} (not yet invented);
>
> Yes, as two separate relationships, you would theoretically want to be
> able to see them separately (or simultaneously side by side). Whether
> exposing that in the prompt is too clunky, I don't know (I don't even
> show ahead/behind in my prompt, but rather prefer to query it when I
> care; I have a separate script that queries the ahead/behind against my
> publishing point, but it would be nice if git handled this itself).
Same here. I do not bother a/b in prompt and comparison with
publishing point is done with a custom script. It would be nice to
have it natively, and @{publish} would be a good first step to do
so.
--
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
