Re: [ITCH] Specify refspec without remote
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:56:46
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Jeff King wrote:quoted
If we are not going to break the existing behavior, I think it can be argued that consistency and simplicity of the rules is important, so the user can predict what will happen. But the more we discuss, the more I think we should simply change the current behavior (to stop respecting branch.* config with "matching"), which just seems wrong to me. Then we can be simple and consistent, and do what the user probably intended.So there are some push.default options that respect branch.* config (ie. "current"), and others that don't (ie. "matching"). I would argue that push.default is badly designed to begin with, so the solution makes sense to me even if the patch is a bit of hack; we never guaranteed that the various push.default options respect the same configuration variables.
If we're going to break "matching" anyway, let's break it fully. I propose that we make it respect each individual branch's branch.<name>.pushremote/ branch.<name>.remote and push the branch to that remote. That'll let us design a git push -- master implicit-push; that actually makes sense.