On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 06:51:22AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > W. Trevor King writes: > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 09:30:56AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > >> I consider it a useful feature that it works without the user > >> configuring a local branch. I agree that in more complex setups > >> this ambiguity is not as nice, but I'd rather it was only the > >> minority of users with unusual setups (e.g. multiple remotes) > >> have to do configuration. > > > > I could work up a patch that tried ‘git show-ref -s config’ first, > > and only fell back to ‘show-ref -s --heads’ if there were multiple > > matches. That way folks with only origin/config wouldn't need a > > local branch, but folks with multiple config-carrying remotes (or > > a single config-carrying remote and a local branch) would have to > > have a local config to break the tie. That's possible, and not > > *too* complicated, but I personally prefer the consistency of just > > requiring a local config branch. > > It might be simpler to implement (and understand) to try first the > local config branch and then fall back to "origin/config".
I'd rather avoid hard-coding an upstream name here. We do hard-code ‘origin’ as the default remote for ‘fetch’, ‘pull’, and ‘push’. I'd rather drop those in favor of the configured Git defaults (for example, running a bare ‘git fetch’ if the user doesn't specify a remote). For most configurations, falling back to “Is ‘git show-ref -s config’ a unique hash?” should be equivalent to hard-coding ‘git show-ref -s origin/config’. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch