Re: documentation for committing with git

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> 6. Finally, you must push your changes back to the server.
>>>>
>>>> git push
>>>>
>>>> This will push changes in all branches you've updated, but only branches
>>>> that also exist on the remote side will be pushed; thus, you can have
>>>> local working branches that won't be pushed.
>>>>
>>>> ==> This is true, but I have found it saner to configure push.default =
>>>> tracking, so that only the current branch is pushes.  Some people might
>>>> find that useful.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Why don't I do that more often...
>>>
>>> +1 on making that a general recommendation, and have people only not
>>> do that if they really know what they're doing :-)
>>
>> Hmm, I didn't know about that option.  What makes us think that's the
>> behavior people will most often want?  Because it doesn't seem like
>> what I want, just for one example...
>
>
> So you're working on some back branch, and make a WIP commit so you can switch to master to make a quick commit.  Create a push on master.  Bare git push.  WIP commit gets pushed upstream.  Oops.

Sure, oops, but I would never do that. I'd stash it or put it on a
topic branch.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company