On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:38 AM, Sean wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:44:12 +1300
> "Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This means that beyond the branches I actively work on, I also have
>> local tracking branches for remote heads that I am not updating. When
>> I say git push, these stale local tracking branches are making a lot
>> of noise in the output:
>
> There may be other workflows where the noise in the output is  
> appropriate.
> What about using "git push origin HEAD" (or an alias for it) to  
> push only
> the branch you have checked out and avoid noise for other branches?


This is what I often do and I also tell my users from
the very beginning to *avoid* a naked "git push".
Instead, they always should say exactly what they mean,
like "git push origin topic", and they can use
"git push origin HEAD" as a short-hand.  Besides, they
should also run with "--dry-run" first to verify what
they do.

We had lengthy discussions about the issue Martin describes.  My
personal conclusion was that people on the list tend to regard
the current behaviour of "git push" as a very stable feature.  So
you should come up with convincing arguments for changes and
you also should ensure that the current behaviour does not break.
I decided to focus on different things and leave "git push" as is.

Here are some pointers to the discussions:

http://marc.info/?l=git&m=119384331712996&w=2

http://marc.info/?l=git&m=119400354601328&w=2

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/65632/focus=65747

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/61955/focus=65493

	Steffen

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html