On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:32:58 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted text
> "master:master") does not exist there, and we do not create it
> unless you give a full refname that begins with refs/ (so that
> push can tell if you want to create a tag or a branch).

And why is that?

Why isn't pushing a branch interpreted as wanting to create a branch
and pushing a tag interpreted as wanting to create a tag unless git is
told differently?

quoted text
> $ git push /pub/git/foo.git master:refs/heads/master

I mean, it's nice that the advanced user can get all specific and
invoke the low-level refs/heads/ thing here. But what I'd really like
to have instead is just:

$ git push /pub/git/foo.git master

Is there any reason that that shouldn't be interpreted as
"master:master" and that that would in turn be interpreted as "create
a remote refs/heads/master" ?

That would really be much kinder for new users.

-Carl

PS. As someone who has written some new-user documentation for git,
there are a few low-level git notions that I would like to avoid in
that documentation. For example, one is FETCH_HEAD. In my first
attempt at porting hgbook-chapter2 to git I found myself using
FETCH_HEAD to simulate "hg incoming". Thankfully, I was able to
rewrite it by taking advantage of remotes and using "master..origin"
instead.

Another example is "refs/heads". I avoided this partially by inly
documenting how to push all branches with "--all", but I'd much rather
be able to say that the user could git push URL branch
another-branch..." or "git push URL --all" for convenience. Finally,
git-push itself spews quite a bit of output with "refs/heads" in it
that I don't think is useful at all. For talking with the user, git
should say "branch master" not "refs/heads/master".