Re: [ITCH] Specify refspec without remote

Jeff King wrote:

But I think all of this discussion just reinforces my point. We do not
have to agree on what the user intended. But the fact that we do not
agree means that out of a sample size of 2 users, we have 2 different
things the user expects to happen. If we choose a behavior and say "this
makes sense", then the other half of the users are going to be confused
or annoyed.

Yes, disagreement is healthy.  My point is that we should have "sane"
defaults, and fine-grained configurability so that uses who disagree
can maintain their own configs.  In this case, respecting a
branch.*.remote for each branch is more fine-grained, while not doing
so is coarse and makes me unhappy.  Then again, we don't have to go
overboard and design another ten configuration variables, but we can
atleast improve on what we already have without breaking consistency
(but we have to minimally break backward compatibility).