Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push?

On 20/03/12 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Andrew Sayers [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I assume the reason for removing the warning altogether is that some day
the signal:noise ratio will just get too bad.

The reasoning is a lot simpler than that.

If the end game is not remove the warning, then we would be switching to a
new default that is "give loud warning until the user configures her own
default, but push upstream/current anyway" mode.  We do not want such a
stupid mode as the default---we want the default to be either upstream or
current at the end, when nobody remembers what the ancient default was.

The "warn loud but do it anyway" is a very good interim step during the
migration, but is never a good default.  If we are going to stop there,
"give loud warning until the user chooses and configures the default, and
push nothing" mode would be a LOT safer and saner default, as it would
really force people to configure the default.  Obviously we do not want to
go there, so...

It sounds like we're disagreeing, but I can't tell what about.  I agree
that "warn loud but do it anyway" is a bad default in the long term.  I
propose implementing the behaviour you want by adding a push.default
setting to the .git/config file for all new repositories, so that users
with a longer-than-expected short term still get the warning.  That
should warn 99% of the people who need it without bothering anyone that
doesn't.  What am I missing?

	- Andrew