Re: [PATCH 3/6] push: change `simple` to accommodate triangular workflows

"Philip Oakley" [off-list ref] writes:

From: "Junio C Hamano" <redacted>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:23 PM

quoted

Ramkumar Ramachandra [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Double negation confused my parser.  'push' and 'pull' should be
kept symmetrical in central workflows?

They're not the same thing.  It is very much intentional and
intended:
the safety net is not to "ensure that the push and pull are
symmetrical" (i.e. among other things, error out if
branch.$branch.merge is unset), but rather "ensure that the push and
pull are never asymmetrical".

Hmmmm....

   not to "ensure that the push and pull are symmetrical"
   rather "ensure that the push and pull are never asymmetrical".

They still talk the same thing to me.  What am I missing?

Am I being clueless, or is there something else going on?

I think it is a case of the user having explicitly set push=Africa and
pull=Europe which can't be a setting for simple symmetry.

Yeah but then that is not a discussion about central workflow.

I can understand "In a central workflow push and pull should be
symmetrical."  I can also, with a bit of double-negation brain
twisting, understand "In a central workflow, push and pull should
not be asymmetrical."

But when I suggest to avoid double-negation, I was told that these
two statements mean different things, and the original should not be
rewritten to avoid double-negation, which is where my brain stopped
and asked for help.