Subject: Re: push.default???

From: Finn Arne Gangstad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:57:55 +0200

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Finn Arne Gangstad wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Before going on, can you explain your use case for --push=tracking 
>>> (in a  case where --push=current wouldn't do the same)?
>>
>> The idea with "tracking" is to push the current branch to wherever it
>> would pull from, making push & pull "equivalent" in some sense.
>>
>> This is different from "current" if you have/choose to name the local
>> branch something else than the remote branch. This happens a lot when
>> using multiple remotes.
>>
>> E.g. some remotes have only a single active branch called "master",
>> and you have to name it something else locally, or several people have
>> local branches called "beta", and you have to name it something like
>> "fred-beta" locally if you are working on fred's beta.
>>
>
> Umm. Why not name it after the feature you're working on instead of the
> branch you started from? That way, you get fred/beta (assuming you've
> added Fred's repo as a remote named "fred" ofcourse) and all your
> branches have names that never (in theory) clash with any of your
> upstreams.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but: The point is that you
can not name it the same as on the remote. So the names are different,
and --current will not work.

- Finn Arne