Possible change to the "git push" behavior

[Pierre-Yves David]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:07:19AM +0100, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Augie Fackler <lists at durin42.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Na'Tosha Bard <natosha at unity3d.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Augie Fackler <lists at durin42.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Mercurial's bookmarks were inspired by Git branches in the sense
> >>>> that they're pointers to changesets that move on commit. But it's
> >>>> not a goal to replicate Git branches 100% and users should not
> >>>> expect changes in Git to propagate directly to Mercurial bookmarks.
> >>>
> >>> I'm actually stunned they're even considering changing this behavior.
> >>
> >> Really?  "Push only the branch I'm working on" is the behavior most
> >> users expect, in my experience, and pushing everything at once by
> >> default is actually an inconvenience.
> >
> > Think of all the deployed software out there that depends on the
> > existing behavior.
> 
> What kind of automated software depends on pushing all available
> branches? The cronjobs I've seen/written all depend on knowing exactly
> which branches they push -- normally a single branch named 'production',
> 'stable' or similar.

the one who synchronize multiple repositories ?


-- 
Pierre-Yves David

http://www.logilab.fr/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120321/f10bf81b/attachment.pgp>