Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> It doesn't make sense to push to the upstream branch, so create new >> configurations for the notion of 'downstream' branch, which is basically >> the branch to push to by default. > > It doesn't? That depends. > > To people coming from (an

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Does branch..merge overrides remote..fetch? No. They >> complement each other. > > I often wonder if you are reading what you're responding to: And I wonder if you care if what you say is actually true. > r

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: > Does branch..merge overrides remote..fetch? No. They > complement each other. I often wonder if you are reading what you're responding to: remote..fetch is operated on by fetch, while branch..merge is operated on by merge; they are really orthogonal. > The same that 'gi

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Would I be able to do: >> >> % git branch --set-upstream-to origin/master --set-downstream-to >> github/fc/master >> >> ? >> >> Would I see these branches when I do 'git branch -vv'? >> Would I be able to do

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: > Would I be able to do: > > % git branch --set-upstream-to origin/master --set-downstream-to > github/fc/master > > ? > > Would I see these branches when I do 'git branch -vv'? > Would I be able to do 'git push next@{downstream}'? Hm, losing this functionality in the name

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> [remote "origin"] >>> push = refs/heads/master:refs/heads/fc/master >>> >>> [remote "."] >>> push = refs/heads/fc/old-remote/hg:refs/heads/fc/remote/hg > > Major thinko. It should be: > > [remote "g

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: >> [remote "origin"] >> push = refs/heads/master:refs/heads/fc/master >> >> [remote "."] >> push = refs/heads/fc/old-remote/hg:refs/heads/fc/remote/hg Major thinko. It should be: [remote "github"] push = refs/heads/master:refs/heads/fc/master push = refs/h

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> And is going to change soon. > > Your point being? How will this patch interact with push.default = matching? > >>> branch..push should probably be named >>> branch..downstreamref and be used only for inform

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: > And is going to change soon. Your point being? How will this patch interact with push.default = matching? >> branch..push should probably be named >> branch..downstreamref and be used only for informational >> purposes (@{d} and git status)? > > That makes absolutely no

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> [branch "master"] >> remote = origin >> merge = refs/heads/master >> pushremote = github >> push = refs/heads/master > > Hm. Some thoughts: > > fetch and push aren't

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-16 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Felipe Contreras wrote: > [branch "master"] > remote = origin > merge = refs/heads/master > pushremote = github > push = refs/heads/master Hm. Some thoughts: fetch and push aren't symmetric. By default fetches are batched: when you say 'git fetch', it f

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-15 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > ...for me > it's more important that 'git fetch' works sanely (patch #1), and I > don't like the proposed patch, but I can't think of anything better. I do not like that either, but I haven't formed a firm opinion on it yet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the l

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-15 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> It doesn't make sense to push to the upstream branch, so create new >> configurations for the notion of 'downstream' branch, which is basically >> the branch to push to by default. > > It doesn't? That depend

Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-15 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > It doesn't make sense to push to the upstream branch, so create new > configurations for the notion of 'downstream' branch, which is basically > the branch to push to by default. It doesn't? That depends. To people coming from (and people who are still using) central

[RFC/PATCH 3/3] push: add separate 'downstream' branch

2013-05-15 Thread Felipe Contreras
It doesn't make sense to push to the upstream branch, so create new configurations for the notion of 'downstream' branch, which is basically the branch to push to by default. The upstream branch is remote+merge, the downstream branch is pushremote+push. [branch "master"] remote = orig