commit | bdaf1dfae71fdf120fc7253e713ccf0a06cc5558 | [log] [tgz] |
---|---|---|
author | Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> | Fri Apr 29 09:56:44 2022 +0000 |
committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | Fri Apr 29 11:20:55 2022 -0700 |
tree | 3a319ef502b5bb5f1566e94ff2ce2ba1e865fb57 | |
parent | 0f828332d5ac36fc63b7d8202652efa152809856 [diff] |
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Git is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations and full access to internals.
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses, compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus Torvalds with help of a group of hackers around the net.
Please read the file INSTALL for installation instructions.
Many Git online resources are accessible from https://git-scm.com/ including full documentation and Git related tools.
See Documentation/gittutorial.txt to get started, then see Documentation/giteveryday.txt for a useful minimum set of commands, and Documentation/git-<commandname>.txt
for documentation of each command. If git has been correctly installed, then the tutorial can also be read with man gittutorial
or git help tutorial
, and the documentation of each command with man git-<commandname>
or git help <commandname>
.
CVS users may also want to read Documentation/gitcvs-migration.txt (man gitcvs-migration
or git help cvs-migration
if git is installed).
The user discussion and development of Git take place on the Git mailing list -- everyone is welcome to post bug reports, feature requests, comments and patches to git@vger.kernel.org (read Documentation/SubmittingPatches for instructions on patch submission and Documentation/CodingGuidelines).
Those wishing to help with error message, usage and informational message string translations (localization l10) should see po/README.md (a po
file is a Portable Object file that holds the translations).
To subscribe to the list, send an email with just “subscribe git” in the body to majordomo@vger.kernel.org (not the Git list). The mailing list archives are available at https://lore.kernel.org/git/, http://marc.info/?l=git and other archival sites.
Issues which are security relevant should be disclosed privately to the Git Security mailing list git-security@googlegroups.com.
The maintainer frequently sends the “What's cooking” reports that list the current status of various development topics to the mailing list. The discussion following them give a good reference for project status, development direction and remaining tasks.
The name “git” was given by Linus Torvalds when he wrote the very first version. He described the tool as “the stupid content tracker” and the name as (depending on your mood):