[RFC PATCH 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-02
[RFC PATCH 1/1] push: make '-u' have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-02
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Philip Oakley <hidden> · 2021-12-03
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-03
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Philip Oakley <hidden> · 2021-12-03
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-03
[PATCH v2 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-07
[PATCH v2 1/1] push: make '-u' have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-07
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] push: make '-u' have default arguments · Eric Sunshine <hidden> · 2021-12-07
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] push: make '-u' have default argument · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-08
[PATCH v3 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-09
[PATCH v3 1/1] push: make '-u' have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2021-12-09
[PATCH v4 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2022-01-01
[PATCH v4 1/1] push: make 'set-upstream' have dafault arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2022-01-01
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] push: make 'set-upstream' have dafault arguments · Junio C Hamano <hidden> · 2022-01-04
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] push: make 'set-upstream' have dafault arguments · Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden> · 2022-01-04

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] making --set-upstream have default arguments

From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-03 16:06:00

Philip Oakley wrote:

Can we protect the expectations of a user with a `pushDefault` setting?

Are you talking about 'push.default'? If so, then I think, the proposed
change would not affect the working of 'push.default' (if the idea is
implemented in the right way). I am adding tests to be sure about it.

If the user has one set, then the upstream won't be where they push in a
triangular repo workflow.

Pardon me, I am unable to understand what you are trying to say. Could you
please explain a little bit?

Thanks.

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help