On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:50:10AM -, Philip Oakley wrote:
This patch introduces the branch@{publish} shorthand (or
@{pu} to be even shorter).
Just to say that I'm not sure that publish is the best word for
this concept.
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
In that sense, publish is not the best word, either, as it describes
only the first two, but not the third case (and those are just examples;
there may be other setups beyond that, even).
Perhaps @{push} would be the most direct word.
Hmph, then the other one
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:16:06PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different remote (or
a different branch on the
Jeff King wrote:
As far as merging it to 'next', I had not really intended it to go that
far. :) It was more for Ram to use as a base.
Sorry about not having posted a follow-up yet; I'm adjusting to a new
timezone and environment.
I find some of the
refactoring questionable, including:
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
On that note, can you hold off graduating
jk/branch-at-publish-rebased, Junio? Hopefully, I'll come up with a
replacement over the weekend.
Sure.
This close to the feature freeze, I'd rather see all contributors,
not limited to you, not rush on
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different remote (or
a different branch on the remote). It may sometimes be
useful to be able to quickly refer to that
From: Jeff King p...@peff.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:37 AM
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different remote (or
a different branch on the remote).
One of the broader
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:42:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
This patch introduces the branch@{publish} shorthand (or
@{pu} to be even shorter). It refers to the tracking
If @{u} can already be used for upstream, why not allow @{p} but
require two letters @{pu}? Just being curious---I
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Or is @{p} already taken by something and my memory is not
functioning well?
It is my brain that was not functioning well. I somehow thought well,
@{u} is already taken, so we must use @{pu}. Which of course makes no
sense, unless you are middle-endian. :)
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:39:44AM -, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: Jeff King p...@peff.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:37 AM
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different
Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org writes:
From: Jeff King p...@peff.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:37 AM
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different remote (or
a different
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different remote (or
a different branch on the remote). It may sometimes be
useful to be able to quickly refer to that publishing point
(e.g., to see which
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
default (if you typed git push) to a different remote (or
a different branch on the remote). It may sometimes be
useful to be able to quickly refer to that
13 matches
Mail list logo
