Jeff King wrote:
> I have not carefully read some of the later bits of the discussion from
> last night / this morning, so maybe I am missing something, but this
> seems backwards to me from what Junio and I were discussing earlier.
>
> The point was that the meaning of "@{upstream}" (and "branch.*.merge")
> is _already_ "forked-from", and "push -u" and "push.default=upstream"
> are the odd men out. If we are going to add an option to distinguish the
> two branch relationships:
>
> 1. Where you forked from
>
> 2. Where you push to
>
> we should leave @{upstream} as (1), and add a new option to represent
> (2). Not the other way around.
I have a local branch 'forkedfrom' that has two "sources": 'master'
and 'ram/forkedfrom'. 'ram/forkedfrom' isn't a "dumb" publish-point:
the relationship information I get between 'forkedfrom' and
'ram/forkedfrom' is very useful; it's what helps me tell how my
re-roll is doing with respect to the original series; I'd often want
to cherry-pick commits/ messages from my original series to prepare
the re-roll, so interaction with this source is quite high. On the
other hand, the relationship information I get between 'forkedfrom'
and 'master' is practically useless: 'forkedfrom' is always ahead of
'master', and a divergence indicates that I need to rebase; I'll never
really need to interact with this source.
I'm only thinking in terms of what infrastructure we've already built:
if @{u} is set to 'ram/forkedfrom', we get a lot of information for
free _now_. If @{u} is set to 'master', the current git-status is
unhelpful.
--
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
