Re: push.default: current vs upstream

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:33:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Andrew Sayers [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

So if the problem is that the documentation cues the reader to think
about upstreams but not to think about downstreams, the solution is to
find excuses to talk more about downstreams.  As far as I'm concerned
@{upstream} means "the place that commits come from when I `git pull`",
so it makes perfect sense to me that @{downstream} would mean "the place
commits go to when I `git push`".

In a separate message I completely misunderstood what you meant by
"downstream".

Yeah, I also took it to mean that the "downstream" of your "upstream"
would be where you started (though as you mentioned, it is not 1-to-1,
so that would not work anyway).

But this:

If you had something like this:

	[remote "origin"]
        	url = ...
        [remote "destination"]
                pushURL = ...

	[branch "topic"]
        	remote = origin
                merge = refs/heads/master
		pushRemote = destination # new
                push = refs/heads/topic # new

you could express that asymmetric layout in a natural way.  When you say
"git push" while on your "topic" branch, it will go to "destination"
remote to update their "topic" branch.

is much more useful (and I already complained about the lack of
something like pushRemote recently). I just think it should not be
called "downstream", as it is not the reverse of upstream.

-Peff