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

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
[off-list ref] wrote:

Johan Herland wrote:

quoted

quoted

+static void setup_push_current(struct remote *remote, struct branch *branch)
+{
+       if (!branch)
+               die(_(message_detached_head_die), remote->name);
+       add_refspec(branch->name);

Here (and above) we add a refspec to tell Git exactly what to push
from the local end, and into what on the remote end.

Nope, we add the refspec "foo", without the :destination part.  The
remote end is unspecified (and defaults to "foo", but that is in the
transport layer).

Ok, so "foo" is not always semantically equivalent to "foo:foo", and
when adding "foo:bar" it is always considered more specific than (and
superior to) "foo". I think that makes sense.

quoted

Is it possible to
end up with multiple simultaneous refspecs matching the same local
ref, but mapping to different remote refs? If so, which will win, and
does that make sense?

It is impossible.  We either:

- Get an explicit refspec from the user and never run
setup_default_push_refspecs() to begin with.

- Run setup_push_refspecs() and add *one* refspec depending on the
push.default value.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. But then, does it make sense to
say that we will only ever have exactly _one_ push refspec in the
current context, and we should therefore replace the "static const
char **refspec;" string array with a single "static const char
*refspec;" string? That would make it obvious that there is no room
for ambiguity with overlapping refspecs.

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, [off-list ref]
www.herland.net