On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:07:08PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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.
Hmm. The top patch of that series still relies on "upstream" being a push destination, though. So if I have a triangular workflow where I fork "topic" from "origin/master", my "git push origin topic" will go to "refs/heads/master" on "origin" under the "upstream" rule. So that seems broken as ever. :) But I guess what you are referring to is that in a triangular world, the second patch lets me do: git config push.default current git config remote.origin.push 'refs/heads/*:refs/review/*' And then "git push", "git push origin", or "git push origin topic" all put it in "review/topic", which is what I want. I think that is sensible, and only heightens my sense of the "upstream" push.default as useless. :) -Peff -- 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
