doc: git-push: clarify DESCRIPTION section #1964
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jvns
force-pushed
the
clarify-push
branch
5 times, most recently
from
30a8f63 to
7211413
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
Error: 7211413 was already submitted |
![gitgitgadget[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12836?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| operation. This parameter can be either a URL | ||
| (see the section <<URLS,GIT URLS>> below) or the name | ||
| of a remote (see the section <<REMOTES,REMOTES>> below). | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - Originally it said that a refspec was `+<src>:<dst>`, but then later
> contradicted itself by saying that the `:<dst>` is optional.
> Mention that `:<dst>` is optional much earlier.
> - Put the complex sets of rules about different refspec forms
> in lists instead of in long paragraphs of prose
> - Add examples for the various types of refspecs
> (negative, deletion, pattern, etc)
> - Previously `*` and `^` were not mentioned, mention them
> - Explain what `+` does earlier
> - Remove "might be added in the future" (it's a given that software
> might change in the future)
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-push.adoc | 164 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index 0232195515c9..78d433c60c51 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -57,77 +57,74 @@ OPTIONS[[OPTIONS]]
>
> <refspec>...::
> Specify what destination ref to update with what source object.
> - The format of a <refspec> parameter is an optional plus
> - `+`, followed by the source object <src>, followed
> - by a colon `:`, followed by the destination ref <dst>.
> -+
> -The <src> is often the name of the branch you would want to push, but
> -it can be any arbitrary "SHA-1 expression", such as `master~4` or
> -`HEAD` (see linkgit:gitrevisions[7]).
> -+
> -The <dst> tells which ref on the remote side is updated with this
> -push. Arbitrary expressions cannot be used here, an actual ref must
> -be named.
> -If `git push [<repository>]` without any `<refspec>` argument is set to
> -update some ref at the destination with `<src>` with
> -`remote.<repository>.push` configuration variable, `:<dst>` part can
> -be omitted--such a push will update a ref that `<src>` normally updates
> -without any `<refspec>` on the command line. Otherwise, missing
> -`:<dst>` means to update the same ref as the `<src>`.
> -+
> -If <dst> doesn't start with `refs/` (e.g. `refs/heads/master`) we will
> -try to infer where in `refs/*` on the destination <repository> it
> -belongs based on the type of <src> being pushed and whether <dst>
> -is ambiguous.
> +
> ---
> -* If <dst> unambiguously refers to a ref on the <repository> remote,
> - then push to that ref.
> -
> -* If <src> resolves to a ref starting with refs/heads/ or refs/tags/,
> - then prepend that to <dst>.
> -
> -* Other ambiguity resolutions might be added in the future, but for
> - now any other cases will error out with an error indicating what we
> - tried, and depending on the `advice.pushUnqualifiedRefname`
> - configuration (see linkgit:git-config[1]) suggest what refs/
> - namespace you may have wanted to push to.
> -
> ---
> -+
> -The object referenced by <src> is used to update the <dst> reference
> -on the remote side. Whether this is allowed depends on where in
> -`refs/*` the <dst> reference lives as described in detail below, in
> -those sections "update" means any modifications except deletes, which
> -as noted after the next few sections are treated differently.
> -+
> -The `refs/heads/*` namespace will only accept commit objects, and
> -updates only if they can be fast-forwarded.
> -+
> -The `refs/tags/*` namespace will accept any kind of object (as
> -commits, trees and blobs can be tagged), and any updates to them will
> -be rejected.
> -+
> -It's possible to push any type of object to any namespace outside of
> -`refs/{tags,heads}/*`. In the case of tags and commits, these will be
> -treated as if they were the commits inside `refs/heads/*` for the
> -purposes of whether the update is allowed.
> -+
> -I.e. a fast-forward of commits and tags outside `refs/{tags,heads}/*`
> -is allowed, even in cases where what's being fast-forwarded is not a
> -commit, but a tag object which happens to point to a new commit which
> -is a fast-forward of the commit the last tag (or commit) it's
> -replacing. Replacing a tag with an entirely different tag is also
> -allowed, if it points to the same commit, as well as pushing a peeled
> -tag, i.e. pushing the commit that existing tag object points to, or a
> -new tag object which an existing commit points to.
> -+
> -Tree and blob objects outside of `refs/{tags,heads}/*` will be treated
> -the same way as if they were inside `refs/tags/*`, any update of them
> -will be rejected.
> -+
> -All of the rules described above about what's not allowed as an update
> -can be overridden by adding an the optional leading `+` to a refspec
All of the above is fairly accurate, even though they are densely
written and at places somewhat redundant.
> +The format for a refspec is [+]<src>[:<dst>], for example `main`,
> +`main:other`, or `HEAD^:refs/heads/main`.
> ++
> +The `<src>` is often the name of the local branch to push, but it can be
> +any arbitrary "SHA-1 expression" (see linkgit:gitrevisions[7]).
> ++
> +The `<dst>` determines what to update on the remote side. It must be the
> +name of a branch, tag, or other ref, not an arbitrary expression.
Concise and simpler beginning is good.
> +`:<dst>` is optional.
It may be technically true, but I am not sure if it is a good idea
to say it here. Without "when missing, <dst> is inferred with these
rules", saying just "is optional" naturally invites a puzzlement:
when do we need to supply it and for what?
As you are going to say what happens when you omit it very soon, and
you already have said with [:<dst>] that it is optional, perhaps you
can scratch this sentence.
> +`+` is optional and does the same thing as `--force`.
Ditto; this one is less bad than the :<dst> thing, because at least
it tells us what it means. But we are going to talk about when an
update is not allowed (we haven't even hinted that some updates may
not be allowed yet) much later, "the same as `--force`" is probably
a bit premature at this point in the documentation.
> +You can write a refspec using the fully expanded form (for
> +example `main:refs/heads/main`) which specifies the exact source
This example is not fully expanded. refs/heads/main:refs/heads/main
would be, though.
> +and destination, or with a shorter form (for example `main` or
> +`main:other`). Here are the rules for how refspecs are expanded,
> +as well as various other special refspec forms:
> ++
I am not sure it is easier to read with numbered list. It is not
like these rules are applied in this order, or anything like that,
right?
> + 1. `<src>` without a `:<dst>` means to update the same ref as the
> + `<src>`, unless the `remote.<repository>.push` configuration specifies a
> + different <dst>. For example, if `main` is a branch, then the refspec
> + `main` expands to `main:refs/heads/main`.
> + 2. If <dst> unambiguously refers to a ref on the <repository> remote,
> + then expand it to that ref. For example, if `v1.0` is a tag on the
> + remote, then `HEAD:v1.0` expands to `HEAD:refs/tags/v1.0`.
> + 3. If <src> resolves to a ref starting with refs/heads/ or refs/tags/,
> + then prepend that to <dst>. For example, if `main` is a branch, then
> + `main:other` expands to `main:refs/heads/other`
> + 4. The special refspec `:` (or `+:` to allow non-fast-forward updates)
> + directs Git to push "matching" branches: for every branch that exists on
> + the local side, the remote side is updated if a branch of the same name
> + already exists on the remote side.
Good to see that the oddballs like this and an empty one, originally
described elsewhere, collected in the same list. An entry like this
that describes a special notation, not a concrete single refspec,
however is a bit hard to read when mixed with other more normal
rules. Perhaps move it down together with the "push void to remove"
at the top of the list?
> + 5. `tag <tag>` expands to `refs/tags/<tag>:refs/tags/<tag>`.
A tangent.
Is this a refspec you can write in .git/config, e.g.
[remote "origin"]
push = tag v1.0"
If not, it might be easier to explain if we tweaked the command line
synopsis to say that the command takes, after the destination
repository, zero or more refspec or "tag <tag>". I dunno.
> + 6. <src> may contain a * to indicate a simple pattern match.
> + This works like a glob that matches any ref matching the pattern.
> + There must be only one * in both the <src> and <dst>.
> + It will map refs to the destination by replacing the * with the
> + contents matched from the source. For example, `refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*`
> + will push all branches.
> + 7. A refspec starting with ^ is a negative refspec.
> + This specifies refs to exclude. A ref will be considered to
> + match if it matches at least one positive refspec, and does not
> + match any negative refspec. Negative refspecs can be pattern refspecs.
> + They must only contain a <src>.
> + Fully spelled out hex object names are also not supported.
> + For example, `git push origin 'refs/heads/*' '^refs/heads/dev-*'`
> + will push all branches except for those starting with `dev-`
Good. Somehow we have added the description of these to "git fetch"
side, without updating "git push" side of the documentation.
> + 8. If `<src>` is empty, it deletes the <dst> ref from the remote
> + repository. For example, `git push origin :dev` will
> + delete the `dev` branch.
OK. This is specific to "push" (you do not delete your local branch
by fetching :refs/heads/to-be-removed from elsewhere), so even if we
wanted to unify the descriptions on both sides in the future, we'd
need to be a bit careful around here.
> + Deletions are always accepted without a leading `+` in the
> + refspec (or `--force`), except when forbidden by configuration or hooks.
This can be read in two ways, making two opposing answers to this
question possible: when forbidden, can you make a deletion accepted
by giving a `+` in front?
"except when forbidden, deletions are accepted with or without `+`"
might be less confusion-prone, but I dunno. I just wanted to make
sure that it is clear that forcing or prepending `+` would not
change anything when forbidden by configuration or hooks on the
remote end.
But because you haven't mentioned that not all updates are allowed,
this might be a bit out of place in this list. How about limiting
this bullet point to only say that this is the syntax to use to
delete a ref from the remote, and move the "deletions do not have to
be forced and operations forbidden at the remote cannot be forced
anyway" down, near the "Not all updates are allowed" below ...
> + See `receive.denyDeletes` in linkgit:git-config[1] and `pre-receive` and
> + `update` in linkgit:githooks[5].
... together with this?
> + 9. If the refspec can't be expanded unambiguously, error
> + out with an error indicating what was
> + tried, and depending on the `advice.pushUnqualifiedRefname`
> + configuration (see linkgit:git-config[1]) suggest what refs/
> + namespace you may have wanted to push to.
> +
> ++
> +Not all updates are allowed: it depends on what kind of destination
> +you're pushing to. In the following rules "update" means any
> +modifications except deletes, which as noted above are treated differently.
> ++
> +All of these rules
> +can be overridden by adding the optional leading `+` to a refspec
> (or using `--force` command line option). The only exception to this
> is that no amount of forcing will make the `refs/heads/*` namespace
> accept a non-commit object. Hooks and configuration can also overrideThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
>> +`:<dst>` is optional.
>
> It may be technically true, but I am not sure if it is a good idea
> to say it here. Without "when missing, <dst> is inferred with these
> rules", saying just "is optional" naturally invites a puzzlement:
> when do we need to supply it and for what?
>
> As you are going to say what happens when you omit it very soon, and
> you already have said with [:<dst>] that it is optional, perhaps you
> can scratch this sentence.
The reason I mentioned this early on is that when I read this for the first time
it was quite confusing. Since `main` (or another branch name on its own) was
the only push refspec I had experience using, it was disorienting to be told
that the format was `<src>:<dst>`. It made me wonder if maybe `main` was not a
refspec after all and I'd misunderstood the SYNOPSIS.
I know that I'm not alone in this: it's very common for Git users (even very
experienced ones!) to learn the form `git push origin main`, but to
otherwise not be familiar at all with the concept of a "refspec".
So I'd like to do something here to help those folks connect their
existing knowledge to the broader concept of a "refspec".
That said `:<dst> is optional` may not be necessary: I think the examples
here accomplish more or less the same thing.
>> +The format for a refspec is [+]<src>[:<dst>], for example `main`,
> > +`main:other`, or `HEAD^:refs/heads/main`.
>> +`+` is optional and does the same thing as `--force`.
>
> Ditto; this one is less bad than the :<dst> thing, because at least
> it tells us what it means. But we are going to talk about when an
> update is not allowed (we haven't even hinted that some updates may
> not be allowed yet) much later, "the same as `--force`" is probably
> a bit premature at this point in the documentation.
The reason I mentioned this so early is similar -- It's very common
for experienced users to be familiar with the `--force` option, and
so this is a quick way to explain to them what the `+` does.
As an aside, I noticed while reading this that it looks like
the description of `--force` right now is not quite accurate,
since the rule about pushing to tags is not "it must be
an ancestor".
>--force::
> Usually, the command refuses to update a remote ref that is
> not an ancestor of the local ref used to overwrite it.
I'm going to think about whether there's a way to format the
"rules for updates" so that they can be referred to from the `--force`
section. Or maybe just move them to the `--force` option, and refer
people there if they want to understand exactly when `--force`
is required.
It's certainly much more common for users to use `--force` to force
a push than to use `+`, from that perspective it would make more
sense to document the rules next to `--force` than next to the
description of `+`.
>> +You can write a refspec using the fully expanded form (for
>> +example `main:refs/heads/main`) which specifies the exact source
>
> This example is not fully expanded. refs/heads/main:refs/heads/main
> would be, though.
Makes sense, will change.
> I am not sure it is easier to read with numbered list. It is not
> like these rules are applied in this order, or anything like that,
> right?
I had a similar concern. I'm still trying to figure out how to manage
unordered lists, since lists with a `*` are formatted by AsciiDoc in a
weird way in the terminal: there's a tab character after the • character
which I don't understand the reason for.
> A tangent.
> Is this a refspec you can write in .git/config, e.g.
>
> [remote "origin"]
> push = tag v1.0"
>
> If not, it might be easier to explain if we tweaked the command line
> synopsis to say that the command takes, after the destination
> repository, zero or more refspec or "tag <tag>". I dunno.
I checked and it's not a valid refspec:
$ git push
fatal: invalid refspec 'tag v1.0'
This list seems like a more natural place for that information than the
synopsis though: the synopsis is already quite hard to read and we
can't use it as the only place to communicate that information.
I can add a note to say that 'tag v1.0' is technically not a refspec.
Git already has enough weird exceptions like that that I don't think
it'll be too jarring.
> Perhaps move it down together with the "push void to remove"
> at the top of the list?
I'll also move it down.
> Good. Somehow we have added the description of these to "git fetch"
> side, without updating "git push" side of the documentation.
Yes, I copied this part from the `git fetch` documention after checking
that they worked with `git push` as well.
>> + Deletions are always accepted without a leading `+` in the
>> + refspec (or `--force`), except when forbidden by configuration or hooks.
>
> This can be read in two ways, making two opposing answers to this
> question possible: when forbidden, can you make a deletion accepted
> by giving a `+` in front?
> "except when forbidden, deletions are accepted with or without `+`"
> might be less confusion-prone, but I dunno. I just wanted to make
> sure that it is clear that forcing or prepending `+` would not
> change anything when forbidden by configuration or hooks on the
> remote end.
>
> But because you haven't mentioned that not all updates are allowed,
> this might be a bit out of place in this list. How about limiting
> this bullet point to only say that this is the syntax to use to
> delete a ref from the remote, and move the "deletions do not have to
> be forced and operations forbidden at the remote cannot be forced
> anyway" down, near the "Not all updates are allowed" below ...
Will do, that's much cleaner.
>> + See `receive.denyDeletes` in linkgit:git-config[1] and `pre-receive` and
>> + `update` in linkgit:githooks[5].
>
> ... together with this?
This makes sense.
- Julia
Documentation/git-push.adoc
Outdated
| documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1]. | ||
| To decide which repository to push to, Git uses the `<repository>` | ||
| argument (for example `git push dev`), then if that's not specified the | ||
| `branch.*.remote` configuration for the current branch, and then defaults |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> -When the command line does not specify what to push with `<refspec>...`
> -arguments or `--all`, `--mirror`, `--tags` options, the command finds
> -the default `<refspec>` by consulting `remote.*.push` configuration,
> -and if it is not found, honors `push.default` configuration to decide
> -what to push (See linkgit:git-config[1] for the meaning of `push.default`).
> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
> +(in order of precedence):
> +
> +1. The <refspec> argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin main`)
> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the current branch
> +3. The `push.default` configuration (See linkgit:git-config[1] for
> + the meaning of `push.default`).
The use of numbered list does make very good sense here, as we (at
least conceptually) examine these rules in the order.
> When neither the command-line nor the configuration specifies what to
> -push, the default behavior is used, which corresponds to the `simple`
> -value for `push.default`: the current branch is pushed to the
> -corresponding upstream branch, but as a safety measure, the push is
> -aborted if the upstream branch does not have the same name as the
> -local one.
> +push, the current branch is pushed to the branch with the same name
> +on the remote. The current branch must have a configured upstream with
> +the same name, so this will fail when pushing a new branch.
Is the last sentence correct?
$ cd /var/tmp/playpen
$ git clone https://github.com/git/git src
$ git clone --no-local --bare src dst
$ cd src
$ git checkout -b alter
$ git commit -m 'empty' --allow-empty
$ git -c push.default=simple push ../dst
Enumerating objects: 1, done.
Counting objects: 100% (1/1), done.
Writing objects: 100% (1/1), 185 bytes | 92.00 KiB/s, done.
Total 1 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 (from 0)
To ../dst
* [new branch] alter -> alter
In "src" repository that is a fresh clone without any customization,
the current branch "alter" does not have any configured upstream.
Puzzled....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
> Is the last sentence correct?
>
> $ cd /var/tmp/playpen
> $ git clone https://github.com/git/git src
> $ git clone --no-local --bare src dst
> $ cd src
> $ git checkout -b alter
> $ git commit -m 'empty' --allow-empty
> $ git -c push.default=simple push ../dst
> Enumerating objects: 1, done.
> Counting objects: 100% (1/1), done.
> Writing objects: 100% (1/1), 185 bytes | 92.00 KiB/s, done.
> Total 1 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 (from 0)
> To ../dst
> * [new branch] alter -> alter
>
> In "src" repository that is a fresh clone without any customization,
> the current branch "alter" does not have any configured upstream.
>
> Puzzled....
It looks like Git behaves differently depending on whether the remote
being pushed to is named "origin" or not: in this example
the push fails to "origin" but succeeds to a differently named remote.
$ git clone https://github.com/jvns/vue3-tiny-template src
$ cd src
$ git remote add origin2 https://github.com/jvns/vue3-tiny-template
$ git checkout -b alter
$ git -c push.default=simple push origin --dry-run
fatal: The current branch alter has no upstream branch.
$ git -c push.default=simple push origin2 --dry-run
To github.com:jvns/vue3-tiny-template
* [new branch] alter -> alter
I tried to find the responsible code by adding some debug print statements
(in this commit:
https://github.com/git/git/commit/541e5d7cf61f970a5653ab496e5c3111271654a1)
It looks like push.simple has some kind of "same remote" checking, and
if the branch has no tracking information, then origin is considered to be the
"same remote" (so pushing is not allowed), but origin2 is not the "same remote",
so it is allowed
|
|
||
| Updates remote refs using local refs, while sending objects | ||
| necessary to complete the given refs. | ||
| Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> Be clearer about what we're describing ("which repository" instead of
> "what to push"), and start with a positive "try X, then Y, then Z"
> instead of a negative ("if X is not specified..").
Since I like this simple rule so much, if it is generally applicable
everywhere, I'd like to have it or a variant of it in one of our
developer facing documentation as a tip to write better
documentation.
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
There is some funny ordering problem with the commit log body and
sign-off.
> ---
> Documentation/git-push.adoc | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index e73b64f61fd0..5c934486c33d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -22,10 +22,10 @@ DESCRIPTION
> Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote
> repository from your local repository.
>
> -When the command line does not specify where to push with the
> -`<repository>` argument, `branch.*.remote` configuration for the
> -current branch is consulted to determine where to push. If the
> -configuration is missing, it defaults to 'origin'.
> +To decide which repository to push to, Git uses the `<repository>`
> +argument (for example `git push dev`), then if that's not specified the
> +`branch.*.remote` configuration for the current branch, and then defaults
> +to `origin`.
Very nicely done.
> When the command line does not specify what to push with `<refspec>...`
> arguments or `--all`, `--mirror`, `--tags` options, the command finds
| [--force-with-lease[=<refname>[:<expect>]] [--force-if-includes]] | ||
| [--no-verify] [<repository> [<refspec>...]] | ||
|
|
||
| DESCRIPTION |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 4:40 PM Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - Users don't understand what a "ref" is, expand it
[snip]
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index d1978650d60a..e73b64f61fd0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -19,12 +19,8 @@ SYNOPSIS
> DESCRIPTION
> -----------
>
> -Updates remote refs using local refs, while sending objects
> -necessary to complete the given refs.
> -
> -You can make interesting things happen to a repository
> -every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there. See
> -documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1].
> +Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote
> +repository from your local repository.
Considering the glossary entry[1] is for "ref", not "reference", what about
(a) linking to the glossary (is this possible?), and/or
(b) saying something like
Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references (called "refs")…
?
[1]: "git help glossary", or
https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary#Documentation/gitglossary.txt-ref
>
> When the command line does not specify where to push with the
> `<repository>` argument, `branch.*.remote` configuration for the
> @@ -44,6 +40,9 @@ corresponding upstream branch, but as a safety measure, the push is
> aborted if the upstream branch does not have the same name as the
> local one.
>
> +You can make interesting things happen to a repository
> +every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there. See
> +documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1].
Seems reasonable to me. Thanks!
--
D. Ben KnobleThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"D. Ben Knoble" <[email protected]> writes:
>> +Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote
>> +repository from your local repository.
>
> Considering the glossary entry[1] is for "ref", not "reference", what about
>
> (a) linking to the glossary (is this possible?), and/or
> (b) saying something like
>
> Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references (called "refs")…
>
> ?
>
> [1]: "git help glossary", or
> https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary#Documentation/gitglossary.txt-ref
Both sound good ideas. We should make sure that readers are aware
of the glossary by linking into it from more places.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
> Considering the glossary entry[1] is for "ref", not "reference", what about
>
> (a) linking to the glossary (is this possible?), and/or
I like this idea. Over on the HTML docs side
(https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/2040)
I've been working on a way to show an interactive tooltip from the glossary when
people hover over "jargon" terms. The goal there is to make the glossary a lot
more discoverable.
Right now it only works for terms inside angle brackets (like `<ref>`), but
I've been thinking of adding a `linkgitglossary:` AsciiDoc macro or something
(similar to `linkgit:`) to link terms to specific glossary entries. It's hard
to tell what that should do in the terminal version of the man pages
(maybe nothing!), but it could make the HTML versions a lot easier to use.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
+cc Junio due to his reply to my reply
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 1:48 PM Julia Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Considering the glossary entry[1] is for "ref", not "reference", what about
> >
> > (a) linking to the glossary (is this possible?), and/or
>
> I like this idea. Over on the HTML docs side
> (https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/2040)
> I've been working on a way to show an interactive tooltip from the glossary when
> people hover over "jargon" terms. The goal there is to make the glossary a lot
> more discoverable.
>
> Right now it only works for terms inside angle brackets (like `<ref>`), but
> I've been thinking of adding a `linkgitglossary:` AsciiDoc macro or something
> (similar to `linkgit:`) to link terms to specific glossary entries. It's hard
> to tell what that should do in the terminal version of the man pages
> (maybe nothing!), but it could make the HTML versions a lot easier to use.
I think we could so similar to existing "linkgit:" and expand to
"gitglossary(7)" (or "git help glossary")
--
D. Ben KnobleThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" wrote (reply to this):
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025, at 18:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "D. Ben Knoble" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> +Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote
>>> +repository from your local repository.
>>
>> Considering the glossary entry[1] is for "ref", not "reference", what about
>>
>> (a) linking to the glossary (is this possible?), and/or
>> (b) saying something like
>>
>> Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references (called "refs")…
>>
>> ?
>>
>> [1]: "git help glossary", or
>> https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary#Documentation/gitglossary.txt-ref
>
> Both sound good ideas. We should make sure that readers are aware
> of the glossary by linking into it from more places.
I wonder if the essential commands that everyone is likely to use ought
to have footnotes which point to the glossary for all the jargon. That
way people can skim past them if they don’t care, especially if there is
(say) at most one footnote after every sentence.
I imagine you could get a lot of parentheticals without this approach.
--
Kristoffer Haugsbakk
|
User |
Documentation/git-push.adoc
Outdated
| documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1]. | ||
| To decide which repository to push to, Git uses the `<repository>` | ||
| argument (for example `git push dev`), then if that's not specified the | ||
| `branch.*.remote` configuration for the current branch, and then defaults |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 4:40 PM Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - Be more explicit about what we're describing ("which branches" instead
> of "what to push")
Reading this, I thought we would lose precision ("refspec" ->
"branches"), but: the patch (correctly) includes more than branches.
Perhaps
- Be more explicit about what we're describing ("which branches,
[etc.]" instead of "what to push")
?
> - Split out the ways to specify which branches into a numbered list,
> since there are 5 different ways to specify it and it's a lot to parse
> in paragraph form
> - The explanation of "push.default=simple" is confusing to some users,
> use an explanation more similar to the one in `man git-config`
> - Mention the most common case where push.default=simple is likely to
> fail, and how to handle it
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-push.adoc | 23 +++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index 5c934486c33d..0232195515c9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -27,18 +27,21 @@ argument (for example `git push dev`), then if that's not specified the
> `branch.*.remote` configuration for the current branch, and then defaults
> to `origin`.
>
> -When the command line does not specify what to push with `<refspec>...`
> -arguments or `--all`, `--mirror`, `--tags` options, the command finds
> -the default `<refspec>` by consulting `remote.*.push` configuration,
> -and if it is not found, honors `push.default` configuration to decide
> -what to push (See linkgit:git-config[1] for the meaning of `push.default`).
> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
> +(in order of precedence):
> +
> +1. The <refspec> argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin main`)
> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the current branch
> +3. The `push.default` configuration (See linkgit:git-config[1] for
> + the meaning of `push.default`).
>
> When neither the command-line nor the configuration specifies what to
> -push, the default behavior is used, which corresponds to the `simple`
> -value for `push.default`: the current branch is pushed to the
> -corresponding upstream branch, but as a safety measure, the push is
> -aborted if the upstream branch does not have the same name as the
> -local one.
> +push, the current branch is pushed to the branch with the same name
> +on the remote. The current branch must have a configured upstream with
> +the same name, so this will fail when pushing a new branch.
> +You can run `git push -u <repository> <current-branch>`
> +to configure the upstream.
I think we've lost the mention of `push.default` here, which we'd
probably like to keep?
Also, I (personally) dislike teach "git push -u <repo> <branch>"
because it leads to some confusion. Let me try to explain myself:
- The way Git treats the configured upstream is the place to pull
from, merge from, rebase onto, etc., configured by branch.X.merge and
branch.X.remote. There is a (possibly!) separate "push to" place
configured (somewhat confusingly) with push.default and
remote.pushDefault.
- The way GitHub and others encourage setting upstream to the place
you push means you have to work a bit harder to pull, merge, rebase
from the semantic upstream (the thing you forked from, not the place
you push to): "git pull <remote> <branch>", "git rebase origin/main",
etc.
- There is, of course, another way that upstream is used: for
"ahead-behind" information in Git's status output. It is convenient to
know where you stand, and Git unfortunately does not provide an easy
way to see the same information against @{push} instead of
@{upstream}. I use some version of "git show-branch HEAD HEAD@{push}"
and a custom "git-div" script [1] for this…
Anyway, point is, I think defaulting to @{upstream} as the place you
push has a nice benefit ("git status" shows me when I haven't pushed
recently), but also is specific to a workflow where you push and pull
from the same places. I find that _most_ of the time I'm actually
doing something triangular (even when I push to and pull from the same
repository, I rarely push to and pull from the same _branch_), and
configuring things a different way affords me many other conveniences.
For example, "git push" and "git pull" without extra flags are
arguments just DWIM.
The confusion I alluded to earlier is that folks rarely learn this is
an option and (in my estimation) lose out on an essential aspect of
what makes Git distributed as opposed to centralized. It also leads to
some confusion over what the term upstream means. And the extra
"push.default explanation is sometimes inaccurate" doesn't help :)
I don't think this is a blocker for this patch, but I do have a bit of
a knee-jerk reaction to this particular piece of
(common-on-the-internet) advice :) Hope that makes sense.
[1]: https://github.com/benknoble/Dotfiles/blob/master/links/bin/git-div
PS I seek a better way to explain this whole idea, so my apologies for
the confused rant.
--
D. Ben Knoble
| operation. This parameter can be either a URL | ||
| (see the section <<URLS,GIT URLS>> below) or the name | ||
| of a remote (see the section <<REMOTES,REMOTES>> below). | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
Thanks for the docs updates! A few nits below, but this looks nice to me :)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 4:40 PM Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - Originally it said that a refspec was `+<src>:<dst>`, but then later
> contradicted itself by saying that the `:<dst>` is optional.
> Mention that `:<dst>` is optional much earlier.
> - Put the complex sets of rules about different refspec forms
> in lists instead of in long paragraphs of prose
> - Add examples for the various types of refspecs
> (negative, deletion, pattern, etc)
> - Previously `*` and `^` were not mentioned, mention them
> - Explain what `+` does earlier
> - Remove "might be added in the future" (it's a given that software
> might change in the future)
Excellent ideas!
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index 0232195515c9..78d433c60c51 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -57,77 +57,74 @@ OPTIONS[[OPTIONS]]
> +The format for a refspec is [+]<src>[:<dst>], for example `main`,
> +`main:other`, or `HEAD^:refs/heads/main`.
> ++
> +The `<src>` is often the name of the local branch to push, but it can be
> +any arbitrary "SHA-1 expression" (see linkgit:gitrevisions[7]).
> ++
> +The `<dst>` determines what to update on the remote side. It must be the
> +name of a branch, tag, or other ref, not an arbitrary expression.
A welcome (to me) simplification from the original paragraph,
especially if we don't lose the original content but rearrange it
better :)
> +`:<dst>` is optional.
Here…
> ++
> +`+` is optional and does the same thing as `--force`.
> ++
…and here, I find it odd to start sentences with punctuation if we can avoid it.
> +You can write a refspec using the fully expanded form (for
> +example `main:refs/heads/main`) which specifies the exact source
> +and destination, or with a shorter form (for example `main` or
> +`main:other`). Here are the rules for how refspecs are expanded,
> +as well as various other special refspec forms:
> ++
> + 1. `<src>` without a `:<dst>` means to update the same ref as the
> + `<src>`, unless the `remote.<repository>.push` configuration specifies a
> + different <dst>. For example, if `main` is a branch, then the refspec
> + `main` expands to `main:refs/heads/main`.
> + 2. If <dst> unambiguously refers to a ref on the <repository> remote,
> + then expand it to that ref. For example, if `v1.0` is a tag on the
> + remote, then `HEAD:v1.0` expands to `HEAD:refs/tags/v1.0`.
> + 3. If <src> resolves to a ref starting with refs/heads/ or refs/tags/,
> + then prepend that to <dst>. For example, if `main` is a branch, then
> + `main:other` expands to `main:refs/heads/other`
> + 4. The special refspec `:` (or `+:` to allow non-fast-forward updates)
> + directs Git to push "matching" branches: for every branch that exists on
> + the local side, the remote side is updated if a branch of the same name
> + already exists on the remote side.
I'm not 100% sure this belongs as an item in an ordered list here,
since it implies (structurally) something about the order of possible
expansions tried. But the introduction to the list does say "rules
[and] special refspec forms"… Hm. Maybe it's worth splitting the
special ones out? idk.
I see Junio mentioned something similar.
> + 5. `tag <tag>` expands to `refs/tags/<tag>:refs/tags/<tag>`.
> + 6. <src> may contain a * to indicate a simple pattern match.
> + This works like a glob that matches any ref matching the pattern.
> + There must be only one * in both the <src> and <dst>.
> + It will map refs to the destination by replacing the * with the
Should src/dst/* have backticks here? I'm not sure.
> + contents matched from the source. For example, `refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*`
> + will push all branches.
> + 7. A refspec starting with ^ is a negative refspec.
Ditto the "^"
> + This specifies refs to exclude. A ref will be considered to
> + match if it matches at least one positive refspec, and does not
> + match any negative refspec. Negative refspecs can be pattern refspecs.
> + They must only contain a <src>.
> + Fully spelled out hex object names are also not supported.
> + For example, `git push origin 'refs/heads/*' '^refs/heads/dev-*'`
> + will push all branches except for those starting with `dev-`
I learned something new today! This isn't in the manual I have for
2.48.1 or 2.51.x locally. Thanks! [Junio mentions it's on the fetch
side, which I see now]
> + 8. If `<src>` is empty, it deletes the <dst> ref from the remote
Backticks for dst ;)
> + repository. For example, `git push origin :dev` will
> + delete the `dev` branch.
> + Deletions are always accepted without a leading `+` in the
> + refspec (or `--force`), except when forbidden by configuration or hooks.
Maybe "except when forbidden on the remote by…" ? (This came from the
original and does not need tweaked in this series, though.)
> + See `receive.denyDeletes` in linkgit:git-config[1] and `pre-receive` and
> + `update` in linkgit:githooks[5].
> + 9. If the refspec can't be expanded unambiguously, error
> + out with an error indicating what was
> + tried, and depending on the `advice.pushUnqualifiedRefname`
> + configuration (see linkgit:git-config[1]) suggest what refs/
> + namespace you may have wanted to push to.
Wrapping looks strange to me here.
> +
> ++
> +Not all updates are allowed: it depends on what kind of destination
> +you're pushing to. In the following rules "update" means any
> +modifications except deletes, which as noted above are treated differently.
> ++
> +All of these rules
> +can be overridden by adding the optional leading `+` to a refspec
Ditto.
> (or using `--force` command line option). The only exception to this
> is that no amount of forcing will make the `refs/heads/*` namespace
> accept a non-commit object. Hooks and configuration can also override
> @@ -135,18 +132,21 @@ or amend these rules, see e.g. `receive.denyNonFastForwards` in
> linkgit:git-config[1] and `pre-receive` and `update` in
> linkgit:githooks[5].
> +
> -Pushing an empty <src> allows you to delete the <dst> ref from the
> -remote repository. Deletions are always accepted without a leading `+`
> -in the refspec (or `--force`), except when forbidden by configuration
> -or hooks. See `receive.denyDeletes` in linkgit:git-config[1] and
> -`pre-receive` and `update` in linkgit:githooks[5].
> -+
> -The special refspec `:` (or `+:` to allow non-fast-forward updates)
> -directs Git to push "matching" branches: for every branch that exists on
> -the local side, the remote side is updated if a branch of the same name
> -already exists on the remote side.
> -+
> -`tag <tag>` means the same as `refs/tags/<tag>:refs/tags/<tag>`.
> +1. If the destination is a **branch** (`refs/heads/*`): the source must
> + be a commit object, and only fast-forward updates are allowed.
> +2. If the destination is a **tag** (`refs/tags/*`): the source can
> + be any object (as commits, trees and blobs can be tagged), and any
> + updates to them will be rejected.
> +3. For destinations outside of `refs/{tags,heads}/*`:
> + * If the source is a tree or blob object, any updates will be rejected
> + * If the source is a tag or commit object, any fast-forward update
> + is allowed, even in cases where what's being fast-forwarded is not a
> + commit, but a tag object which happens to point to a new commit which
> + is a fast-forward of the commit the last tag (or commit) it's
> + replacing. Replacing a tag with an entirely different tag is also
> + allowed, if it points to the same commit, as well as pushing a peeled
> + tag, i.e. pushing the commit that existing tag object points to, or a
> + new tag object which an existing commit points to.
I didn't close-read this bit, but it seems reasonable.
--
D. Ben Knoble
|
User |
|
There are issues in commit af6ee52: |
1 similar comment
|
There are issues in commit af6ee52: |
|
There are issues in commit 5b4cf34: |
|
There are issues in commit 5a9901d: |
|
There are issues in commit d0dff98: |
|
There are issues in commit c868126: |
|
There are issues in commit 1c8e16b: |
jvns
force-pushed
the
clarify-push
branch
5 times, most recently
from
79bb21c to
59732f1
Compare
|
/submit |
| git push uses: | ||
|
|
||
| ------------ | ||
| HEAD:refs/heads/<head> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> Since the `git pull`, `git push`, and `git fetch` man pages already
> include sections on REMOTES and the syntax for URLs, add a section on
> UPSTREAM BRANCHES to `urls-remotes.adoc` and rename it to
> `urls-remotes-upstreams.adoc`. That's an awkward name but at least it's
> clear what's in the file.
You no longer do any such thing ;-) I can locally everyting after
"and rename it ..." and replace it with a single full-stop "." so
unless there are other things you would need to update this topic
with, no need to correct only this part.
> In the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, cover the various ways that
> upstreams branches are automatically set in Git, since users may
> mistakenly think that their branch does not have an upstream branch if
> they didn't explicitly set one.
>
> A terminology note: Git uses two terms for this concept:
>
> - "tracking" as in "the current branch is _tracking_ some remote"
> or the `--track` option to `git branch`
Should we say "tracking some branch at a remote"? It is not like
the current branch tracks more than one (or all) branches at the
remote as a whole.
> - "upstream" or "upstream branch", as in `git push --set-upstream`.
> This term is also used in the `git rebase` man page to refer to the
> first argument to `git rebase`, as well as in `git pull` to refer to
> the branch which is going to be merged into the current branch ("merge
> the upstream branch into the current branch")
This side is fine.
> Use "upstream branch" as a heading for this concept even though the term
> "upstream branch" is not always used strictly in the sense of "the
> tracking information for the current branch". "Upstream" is used much
> more often than "tracking" in the Git docs to refer to this concept and
> the goal is to help users understand the docs.
Good.
> diff --git a/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc b/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
> index 9b10151198..1138a5889d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
> @@ -91,6 +91,44 @@ git push uses:
> HEAD:refs/heads/<head>
> ------------
>
> -
> -
> -
> +UPSTREAM BRANCHES[[UPSTREAM-BRANCHES]]
> +--------------------------------------
Can we have at least two blank lines between these sections to make
it visually distinct from a gap between two paragraphs? I know it
would not make a difference in the rendered pages, but it would help
those who read the document in the source form.
> +
> +Branches in Git can optionally have an upstream remote branch.
> +Git defaults to using the upstream branch for remote operations, for example:
> +
> +* It's the default for `git pull` or `git fetch` with no arguments
I think you'd want to finish this sentence with a full-stop ".", and
a few lines below, the point beginning with "Various commands".
> +* It's the default for `git push` with no arguments, with some exceptions.
> + For example, you can use the `branch.<name>.pushRemote` option to push
> + to a different remote than you pull from, and by default with
> + `push.default=simple` the upstream branch you configure must have
> + the same name.
> +* Various commands, including `git checkout` and `git status`, will
> + show you how many commits have been added to your current branch and
> + the upstream since you forked from it, for example "Your branch and
> + 'origin/main' have diverged, and have 2 and 3 different commits each
> + respectively"
Other than these, all changes from the previous version look good to
me.
Thanks.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Since the `git pull`, `git push`, and `git fetch` man pages already
>> include sections on REMOTES and the syntax for URLs, add a section on
>> UPSTREAM BRANCHES to `urls-remotes.adoc` and rename it to
>> `urls-remotes-upstreams.adoc`. That's an awkward name but at least it's
>> clear what's in the file.
>
> You no longer do any such thing ;-) I can locally everyting after
> "and rename it ..." and replace it with a single full-stop "." so
> unless there are other things you would need to update this topic
> with, no need to correct only this part.
Will fix this (and everything else you mentioned in this email), thanks.
>> In the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, cover the various ways that
>> upstreams branches are automatically set in Git, since users may
>> mistakenly think that their branch does not have an upstream branch if
>> they didn't explicitly set one.
>>
>> A terminology note: Git uses two terms for this concept:
>>
>> - "tracking" as in "the current branch is _tracking_ some remote"
>> or the `--track` option to `git branch`
>
> Should we say "tracking some branch at a remote"? It is not like
> the current branch tracks more than one (or all) branches at the
> remote as a whole.
>
>> - "upstream" or "upstream branch", as in `git push --set-upstream`.
>> This term is also used in the `git rebase` man page to refer to the
>> first argument to `git rebase`, as well as in `git pull` to refer to
>> the branch which is going to be merged into the current branch ("merge
>> the upstream branch into the current branch")
>
> This side is fine.
>
>> Use "upstream branch" as a heading for this concept even though the term
>> "upstream branch" is not always used strictly in the sense of "the
>> tracking information for the current branch". "Upstream" is used much
>> more often than "tracking" in the Git docs to refer to this concept and
>> the goal is to help users understand the docs.
>
> Good.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc b/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
>> index 9b10151198..1138a5889d 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
>> +++ b/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
>> @@ -91,6 +91,44 @@ git push uses:
>> HEAD:refs/heads/<head>
>> ------------
>>
>> -
>> -
>> -
>> +UPSTREAM BRANCHES[[UPSTREAM-BRANCHES]]
>> +--------------------------------------
>
> Can we have at least two blank lines between these sections to make
> it visually distinct from a gap between two paragraphs? I know it
> would not make a difference in the rendered pages, but it would help
> those who read the document in the source form.
>
>> +
>> +Branches in Git can optionally have an upstream remote branch.
>> +Git defaults to using the upstream branch for remote operations, for example:
>> +
>> +* It's the default for `git pull` or `git fetch` with no arguments
>
> I think you'd want to finish this sentence with a full-stop ".", and
> a few lines below, the point beginning with "Various commands".
>
>> +* It's the default for `git push` with no arguments, with some exceptions.
>> + For example, you can use the `branch.<name>.pushRemote` option to push
>> + to a different remote than you pull from, and by default with
>> + `push.default=simple` the upstream branch you configure must have
>> + the same name.
>> +* Various commands, including `git checkout` and `git status`, will
>> + show you how many commits have been added to your current branch and
>> + the upstream since you forked from it, for example "Your branch and
>> + 'origin/main' have diverged, and have 2 and 3 different commits each
>> + respectively"
>
> Other than these, all changes from the previous version look good to
> me.
>
> Thanks.
Documentation/git-push.adoc
Outdated
|
|
||
| To decide which repository to push to, Git uses the `<repository>` | ||
| argument (for example `git push dev`), then if that's not specified the | ||
| upstream configuration for the current branch, and then defaults |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> -When the command line does not specify what to push with `<refspec>...`
> -arguments or `--all`, `--mirror`, `--tags` options, the command finds
> -the default `<refspec>` by consulting `remote.*.push` configuration,
> -and if it is not found, honors `push.default` configuration to decide
> -what to push (See linkgit:git-config[1] for the meaning of `push.default`).
> -
> -When neither the command-line nor the configuration specifies what to
> -push, the default behavior is used, which corresponds to the `simple`
> -value for `push.default`: the current branch is pushed to the
> -corresponding upstream branch, but as a safety measure, the push is
> -aborted if the upstream branch does not have the same name as the
> -local one.
That's a lot of text, and ...
> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
> +(in order of precedence):
> +
> +1. The `<refspec>` argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin main`)
> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the repository being pushed to
> +3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
> + which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
> + See the CONFIGURATION section below for more on `push.default`.
.. the above gives us vastly more pleasant readability improvement.
Nice.
I do not know if you want to do anything to the lack of any
punctuation at the end of sentences 1. and 2. (I would have written
';' if I were writing this myself).
> +As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
> +for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
> +See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
> +use upstreams.
This feels a bit out of place, as the safety measure, as I
understand it, is only relevant in 3. and only when push.default is
set to "simple". If we are referring the user to the configuration
section, then it may be a better place to say that the "simple"
setting requires you to integrate with the branch with the same name.
Thanks.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025, at 4:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> -When the command line does not specify what to push with `<refspec>...`
>> -arguments or `--all`, `--mirror`, `--tags` options, the command finds
>> -the default `<refspec>` by consulting `remote.*.push` configuration,
>> -and if it is not found, honors `push.default` configuration to decide
>> -what to push (See linkgit:git-config[1] for the meaning of `push.default`).
>> -
>> -When neither the command-line nor the configuration specifies what to
>> -push, the default behavior is used, which corresponds to the `simple`
>> -value for `push.default`: the current branch is pushed to the
>> -corresponding upstream branch, but as a safety measure, the push is
>> -aborted if the upstream branch does not have the same name as the
>> -local one.
>
> That's a lot of text, and ...
>
>> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
>> +(in order of precedence):
>> +
>> +1. The `<refspec>` argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin main`)
>> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
>> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the repository being pushed to
>> +3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
>> + which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
>> + See the CONFIGURATION section below for more on `push.default`.
>
> .. the above gives us vastly more pleasant readability improvement.
> Nice.
>
> I do not know if you want to do anything to the lack of any
> punctuation at the end of sentences 1. and 2. (I would have written
> ';' if I were writing this myself).
>
>> +As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
>> +for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
>> +See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
>> +use upstreams.
>
> This feels a bit out of place, as the safety measure, as I
> understand it, is only relevant in 3. and only when push.default is
> set to "simple". If we are referring the user to the configuration
> section, then it may be a better place to say that the "simple"
> setting requires you to integrate with the branch with the same name.
That makes sense. My goal here is really to communicate that you may need
to set an upstream for `git push` to work, since it hasn't been mentioned yet
that the upstream branch might be involved in deciding what remote branch
to push to, and it comes up pretty often when using the command.
Perhaps this instead:
"Depending on the value of `push.default`, git push` may fail if the current
branch doesn't have a configured upstream branch.
See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
use upstreams."
> Thanks.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> +As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
>>> +for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
>>> +See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
>>> +use upstreams.
>>
>> This feels a bit out of place, as the safety measure, as I
>> understand it, is only relevant in 3. and only when push.default is
>> set to "simple". If we are referring the user to the configuration
>> section, then it may be a better place to say that the "simple"
>> setting requires you to integrate with the branch with the same name.
>
> That makes sense. My goal here is really to communicate that you may need
> to set an upstream for `git push` to work, since it hasn't been mentioned yet
> that the upstream branch might be involved in deciding what remote branch
> to push to, and it comes up pretty often when using the command.
Actually, I think it is a mistake to tell people to use unadorned
"git push" all the time. Have them say "git push origin mytopic",
get them feel sick of doing so all the time, and then tell them they
do not have to if they set an upstream for the current branch. IOW,
"sometimes you need to" is the source of the confusion that comes
from giving them too much DWIMmery. You'd by default need to tell
Git, because you know more about your project than Git does, until
you tell Git once, after which Git knows what to do.
> Perhaps this instead:
>
> "Depending on the value of `push.default`, git push` may fail if the current
> branch doesn't have a configured upstream branch.
> See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
> use upstreams."
So, rather, something like this
"git push" needs to know what branch to push to update what
branch of which repository. It is done by giving command line
arguments and/or setting configuration variables to the command.
See UPSTREAM BRANCHES section for more information.
would be more in line with a preferrable mindset users would have to
successfully use "git push", I think.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>> +As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
>>>> +for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
>>>> +See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
>>>> +use upstreams.
>>>
>>> This feels a bit out of place, as the safety measure, as I
>>> understand it, is only relevant in 3. and only when push.default is
>>> set to "simple". If we are referring the user to the configuration
>>> section, then it may be a better place to say that the "simple"
>>> setting requires you to integrate with the branch with the same name.
>>
>> That makes sense. My goal here is really to communicate that you may need
>> to set an upstream for `git push` to work, since it hasn't been mentioned yet
>> that the upstream branch might be involved in deciding what remote branch
>> to push to, and it comes up pretty often when using the command.
>
> Actually, I think it is a mistake to tell people to use unadorned
> "git push" all the time. Have them say "git push origin mytopic",
> get them feel sick of doing so all the time, and then tell them they
> do not have to if they set an upstream for the current branch. IOW,
> "sometimes you need to" is the source of the confusion that comes
> from giving them too much DWIMmery. You'd by default need to tell
> Git, because you know more about your project than Git does, until
> you tell Git once, after which Git knows what to do.
>
>> Perhaps this instead:
>>
>> "Depending on the value of `push.default`, git push` may fail if the current
>> branch doesn't have a configured upstream branch.
>> See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
>> use upstreams."
>
> So, rather, something like this
>
> "git push" needs to know what branch to push to update what
> branch of which repository. It is done by giving command line
> arguments and/or setting configuration variables to the command.
> See UPSTREAM BRANCHES section for more information.
>
> would be more in line with a preferrable mindset users would have to
> successfully use "git push", I think.
In principle I like the idea of saying that "git push needs to know
what branch to update...", it's a clear statement and it seems logical.
But I'm not sure it's true in this case: we just said above that
"The default is `push.default=simple`, which will push to a branch with
the same name as the current branch." So with push.default=simple,
Git already knows what branch it will update, it's the branch with the
same name.
As I understand it, with push.default=simple, the reason you need to set
the upstream is not to tell Git what branch to update (since Git will not
even let you set the upstream to a branch with a different name), but
instead it's more of a safety check to prevent you from accidentally
pushing a branch that you didn't mean to. Is that wrong?There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
> As I understand it, with push.default=simple, the reason you need to set
> the upstream is not to tell Git what branch to update (since Git will not
> even let you set the upstream to a branch with a different name), but
> instead it's more of a safety check to prevent you from accidentally
> pushing a branch that you didn't mean to. Is that wrong?
Your understanding is correct, but when push.default=simple
castrates "git push", and you are on branch 'foo', it is dubious to
argue that "git push" _knows_ it will be pushed to 'foo' at origin.
It is very much conditional---what Git is being told is that the
push would be made there only if branch.foo.{remote,merge} were set
up to push these. If the setting is not there, then Git does not
know where to push to.
I agree with you that setting these configurations is *not* about
letting Git know. It is about lifting that conditional that
prevents Git from knowing where to push to.
> But I'm not sure it's true in this case: we just said above that
> "The default is `push.default=simple`, which will push to a branch with
> the same name as the current branch."
So I think this simplified statement is what causes confusion. It
says push.default=simple will push to such and such place, but that
is not true. push.default=simple only means that no settings that
points a branch with different name as your upstream is accepted.
And configured upstream is what determines what branch at what
remote is updated with a push.
You can tell the same story about push.default=upstream; configured
upstream is what determines what branch at what remote is updated in
this case, too, and it won't push out if you do not have your
upstream configured.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, at 11:29 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> But I'm not sure it's true in this case: we just said above that
>>> "The default is `push.default=simple`, which will push to a branch with
>>> the same name as the current branch."
>>
>> So I think this simplified statement is what causes confusion. It
>> says push.default=simple will push to such and such place, but that
>> is not true....
>
> After sleeping on this, I do think that at the crux of confusing
> wording in the current draft is the lack of stress on "simple" being
> a narrower special case of more general "upstream" for various
> push.default modes. In either of these modes, unless told otherwise
> with the configuration file or the command line arguments, "git
> push" pushes to update the upstream of the current branch. There
> is, as you said, an additional safety measure in the "simple" mode,
> that rejects a configuration to have a branch whose name is
> different in the remote repository as the upstream branch.
>
> In other words, the push.default=simple mode does not tell Git to
> push to a branch with the same name. Rather, as a variant of the
> push.default=upstream mode, it tells Git to follow the same "push to
> the upstream branch" rule, which requires you to configure your
> upstream. But the mode gives additional limit on the name of the
> branch that can be set to upstream.
I like the idea of explaining it as "push.default=simple uses the
configured upstream branch, with the restriction that the upstream
branch must have the same name".
But as I learned from you earlier in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected]/T/#m896f4a32ca462d69637b56f9bdfaa61e55e6b952
push.default=simple will sometimes push the current branch
to the remote branch with the same name even if there's no configured
upstream branch.
So it seems more accurate to say that push.default.simple will push
to the branch with the same name, with the restriction that you might
have to set an upstream, because the branch must always have the
same name, but whether or not you have to set an upstream depends
on the situation.
Personally that behaviour seems unintuitive to me: I always
thought that push.default=simple _did_ require you to set an
upstream branch and after spending many hours thinking about I still
can't really describe in a way that feels satisfactory to me why
it sometimes doesn't and under what conditions that happens.
One idea I had was to change Git's behaviour so that push.default=simple
_does_ require you to set an upstream branch, and then we could
document that behaviour. That's how it used to work when
push.default=simple was originally created and it's not clear to me if the
change to make push.default=simple _not_ always require you to
set an upstream was intentional or not. I did a git bisect to find out when
this changed, and it was in https://github.com/git/git/commit/ed2b18292bfeedc98c9e2b6bd8a35d8001dab2fc
commit ed2b18292bfeed
I tried to write a patch to require setting an upstream branch, though my
commit message has some mistakes and I'm not at all sure of my
understanding of the code.
https://github.com/jvns/git/commit/3553479892b11c50de939707e7f00aa7c7cb2f9d
> We should make our text clear enough that anybody who read about the
> push.default=simple configuration easily understand the above. We
> would need to find a good division between what to put in the main
> text and what to leave out to the "see ... for more detauls" part to
> guide those who read about "git push" command to the same
> realization without bombarding them with descriptions of full range
> of possible values of push.default.
>
> Peeking our earlier exchange to help me formulate my thinking a
> bit...
>
>> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
>> +(in order of precedence):
>> +
>> +1. The `<refspec>` argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin main`)
>> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
>> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the repository being pushed to
>> +3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
>> + which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
>> + See the CONFIGURATION section below for more on `push.default`.
>> +
>> +As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
>> +for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
>> +See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
>> +use upstreams.
>
> ... here is my attempt.
>
> 3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `simple`,
> which is a variant of `upstream`. In either mode, "git push"
> updates the configured upstream branch (see the UPSTREAM
> BRANCHES section for more on how to set and use upstreams).
> The 'simple' mode has an additional limitation that the name
> of your configured upstream must be the same as your branch.
>
> (iow, I rolled the "As a safety measure" paragraph into 3. itself).There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
>> In other words, the push.default=simple mode does not tell Git to
>> push to a branch with the same name. Rather, as a variant of the
>> push.default=upstream mode, it tells Git to follow the same "push to
>> the upstream branch" rule, which requires you to configure your
>> upstream. But the mode gives additional limit on the name of the
>> branch that can be set to upstream.
>
> I like the idea of explaining it as "push.default=simple uses the
> configured upstream branch, with the restriction that the upstream
> branch must have the same name".
>
> But as I learned from you earlier in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected]/T/#m896f4a32ca462d69637b56f9bdfaa61e55e6b952
> push.default=simple will sometimes push the current branch
> to the remote branch with the same name even if there's no configured
> upstream branch.
It was not me teaching anybody, though. I was showing my puzzlement
and confusion.
When b55e6775 (push: introduce new push.default mode "simple",
2012-04-24) introduced the "simple" mode, the intention was fairly
clear:
push: introduce new push.default mode "simple"
When calling "git push" without argument, we want to allow Git to do
something simple to explain and safe. push.default=matching is unsafe
when used to push to shared repositories, and hard to explain to
beginners in some contexts. It is debatable whether 'upstream' or
'current' is the safest or the easiest to explain, so introduce a new
mode called 'simple' that is the intersection of them: push to the
upstream branch, but only if it has the same name remotely. If not, give
an error that suggests the right command to push explicitely to
'upstream' or 'current'.
A question is whether to allow pushing when no upstream is configured. An
argument in favor of allowing the push is that it makes the new mode work
in more cases. On the other hand, refusing to push when no upstream is
configured encourages the user to set the upstream, which will be
beneficial on the next pull. Lacking better argument, we chose to deny
the push, because it will be easier to change in the future if someone
shows us wrong.
Original-patch-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
We did reject a "git push" (no other arguments) in an unconfigured
repository using push.default=simple.
We must have _broken_ it along the way somewhere over the years.
In the output from
$ git log --all-match --grep=push.default --grep=simple
there are a handful of changes that touch PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE in
ancient history; ed2b1829 (push: change `simple` to accommodate
triangular workflows, 2013-06-19), seems to have broken the
unconfigured case, which 00a6fa07 (push: truly use "simple" as
default, not "upstream", 2014-11-26) tried to fix it, and then
another commit e291c75a (remote.c: add branch_get_push, 2015-05-21)
further tweaked on the triangular (i.e. the remote you are pushing
to is different from the remote you are fetching from) workflow.
But that is long time ago; I do not think we can _fix_ the breakage
as that would be a big behaviour change. If 'simple' works to
update the branch with the same name as your current branch at the
remote you cloned from without you having to do anything special,
such a convinience is something the existing users we acquired over
the past 10 years must have become very accustomed to already. We
cannot break them.
And that is my excuse for stopping to look into the detauls of
these commits the above "git log" command found ;-)
> So it seems more accurate to say that push.default.simple will push
> to the branch with the same name, with the restriction that you might
> have to set an upstream, because the branch must always have the
> same name, but whether or not you have to set an upstream depends
> on the situation.
Now, I am still confused as I was when I wrote the message you
cited earlier.
Do we ever have a case where, with the "simple" mode, you have to
set an upstream? You may have set an upstream in a way that is not
compatible with the "simple" mode and need to fix it, but otherwise,
it appears that the "simple" mode should always work for an
unsuspecting user who does not configure their repository and
remotes into some nonstandard shape.
And if so, perhaps we do not need any special warning/note to write
for a place where we talk about "git push" generally (as opposed to
where we talk about push.default=simple settings)?
Thanks.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> In other words, the push.default=simple mode does not tell Git to
>>> push to a branch with the same name. Rather, as a variant of the
>>> push.default=upstream mode, it tells Git to follow the same "push to
>>> the upstream branch" rule, which requires you to configure your
>>> upstream. But the mode gives additional limit on the name of the
>>> branch that can be set to upstream.
>>
>> I like the idea of explaining it as "push.default=simple uses the
>> configured upstream branch, with the restriction that the upstream
>> branch must have the same name".
>>
>> But as I learned from you earlier in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected]/T/#m896f4a32ca462d69637b56f9bdfaa61e55e6b952
>> push.default=simple will sometimes push the current branch
>> to the remote branch with the same name even if there's no configured
>> upstream branch.
>
> It was not me teaching anybody, though. I was showing my puzzlement
> and confusion.
Oh, I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been confused about how
`push.default=simple` behaves :)
> When b55e6775 (push: introduce new push.default mode "simple",
> 2012-04-24) introduced the "simple" mode, the intention was fairly
> clear:
>
> push: introduce new push.default mode "simple"
>
> When calling "git push" without argument, we want to allow Git to do
> something simple to explain and safe. push.default=matching is unsafe
> when used to push to shared repositories, and hard to explain to
> beginners in some contexts. It is debatable whether 'upstream' or
> 'current' is the safest or the easiest to explain, so introduce a new
> mode called 'simple' that is the intersection of them: push to the
> upstream branch, but only if it has the same name remotely. If not, give
> an error that suggests the right command to push explicitely to
> 'upstream' or 'current'.
>
> A question is whether to allow pushing when no upstream is configured. An
> argument in favor of allowing the push is that it makes the new mode work
> in more cases. On the other hand, refusing to push when no upstream is
> configured encourages the user to set the upstream, which will be
> beneficial on the next pull. Lacking better argument, we chose to deny
> the push, because it will be easier to change in the future if someone
> shows us wrong.
>
> Original-patch-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
>
> We did reject a "git push" (no other arguments) in an unconfigured
> repository using push.default=simple.
>
> We must have _broken_ it along the way somewhere over the years.
>
> In the output from
>
> $ git log --all-match --grep=push.default --grep=simple
>
> there are a handful of changes that touch PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE in
> ancient history; ed2b1829 (push: change `simple` to accommodate
> triangular workflows, 2013-06-19), seems to have broken the
> unconfigured case, which 00a6fa07 (push: truly use "simple" as
> default, not "upstream", 2014-11-26) tried to fix it, and then
> another commit e291c75a (remote.c: add branch_get_push, 2015-05-21)
> further tweaked on the triangular (i.e. the remote you are pushing
> to is different from the remote you are fetching from) workflow.
>
> But that is long time ago; I do not think we can _fix_ the breakage
> as that would be a big behaviour change. If 'simple' works to
> update the branch with the same name as your current branch at the
> remote you cloned from without you having to do anything special,
> such a convinience is something the existing users we acquired over
> the past 10 years must have become very accustomed to already. We
> cannot break them.
That makes sense, can’t break backwards compatibility.
> And that is my excuse for stopping to look into the detauls of
> these commits the above "git log" command found ;-)
>
>> So it seems more accurate to say that push.default.simple will push
>> to the branch with the same name, with the restriction that you might
>> have to set an upstream, because the branch must always have the
>> same name, but whether or not you have to set an upstream depends
>> on the situation.
>
> Now, I am still confused as I was when I wrote the message you
> cited earlier.
>
> Do we ever have a case where, with the "simple" mode, you have to
> set an upstream?
Yes. If you clone a repository, create a new branch, and run `git push`
(to push to `origin`), Git will complain that you haven’t set an upstream
for that branch, like this:
$ git push
fatal: The current branch testtesttesttest has no upstream branch.
To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
git push --set-upstream origin testtesttesttest
To have this happen automatically for branches without a tracking
upstream, see 'push.autoSetupRemote' in 'git help config'
I use `push.default=simple` and this has happened to me a lot in the
past, personally I set `push.autoSetupRemote` to deal with this.
My best guess from my experimentation and from reading some
of the commit messages/code is that the rules for how
`push.default=simple` works are something like:
1. If the remote you're pushing to is the remote that `git pull`
would normally pull from if run without any arguments,
then require the user to set an upstream
(with the idea that the remote is somehow "special"
and should be protected from accidental pushes)
2. Otherwise, push to the branch to with the same name
without requiring an upstream to be set
That said, the exact details of how push.default=simple works
(ironically) seem complicated enough that I don't think it's worth
documenting in detail at the beginning of the `git push` man page.
I definitely haven't been able to fully understand what they are yet.
Certainly it's true that sometimes you have to set an upstream
and sometimes you don't.
To go back to the original text I suggested:
> 3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
> which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
> See the CONFIGURATION section below for more on `push.default`.
>
> As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
> for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
> See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
> use upstreams.
The words "may fail" are definitely vague, and I agree it doesn't feel good
to give a vague explanation like this. But if we think the current
behaviour is "broken" and hard to understand and that we have to keep it for
backwards compatibility reasons, giving a slightly vague explanation
(perhaps with a reference to where someone can read all the gritty
details) might be the best path.
I do like the idea (that I think you mentioned before) of adding a very
simple sentence like this near the beginning explaining what
`git push origin main` does, since it's easy to explain, and someone could
easily successfully start using `git push` without knowing any other
information.
> `git push origin main` will push the local `main` branch to the `main`
branch on `origin`.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> In other words, the push.default=simple mode does not tell Git to
>>>> push to a branch with the same name. Rather, as a variant of the
>>>> push.default=upstream mode, it tells Git to follow the same "push to
>>>> the upstream branch" rule, which requires you to configure your
>>>> upstream. But the mode gives additional limit on the name of the
>>>> branch that can be set to upstream.
>>>
>>> I like the idea of explaining it as "push.default=simple uses the
>>> configured upstream branch, with the restriction that the upstream
>>> branch must have the same name".
>>>
>>> But as I learned from you earlier in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected]/T/#m896f4a32ca462d69637b56f9bdfaa61e55e6b952
>>> push.default=simple will sometimes push the current branch
>>> to the remote branch with the same name even if there's no configured
>>> upstream branch.
>>
>> It was not me teaching anybody, though. I was showing my puzzlement
>> and confusion.
>> Now, I am still confused as I was when I wrote the message you
>> cited earlier.
>>
>> Do we ever have a case where, with the "simple" mode, you have to
>> set an upstream?
>
> Yes. If you clone a repository, create a new branch, and run `git push`
> (to push to `origin`), Git will complain that you haven’t set an upstream
> for that branch, like this:
>
> $ git push
> fatal: The current branch testtesttesttest has no upstream branch.
> To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
>
> git push --set-upstream origin testtesttesttest
> To have this happen automatically for branches without a tracking
> upstream, see 'push.autoSetupRemote' in 'git help config'
Hmph, that contradicts with the observation we had in the message
you cited earlier, but it does reproduce for me as well. Puzzled
again.
> My best guess from my experimentation and from reading some
> of the commit messages/code is that the rules for how
> `push.default=simple` works are something like:
>
> 1. If the remote you're pushing to is the remote that `git pull`
> would normally pull from if run without any arguments,
> then require the user to set an upstream
> (with the idea that the remote is somehow "special"
> and should be protected from accidental pushes)
This is the traditional 'simple'
> 2. Otherwise, push to the branch to with the same name
> without requiring an upstream to be set
This is what 'triangular' feature we saw earlier in the "git log"
output in my message you are responding to had a few commits for.
> That said, the exact details of how push.default=simple works
> (ironically) seem complicated enough that I don't think it's worth
> documenting in detail at the beginning of the `git push` man page.
Totally agreed.
> To go back to the original text I suggested:
>
>> 3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
>> which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
>> See the CONFIGURATION section below for more on `push.default`.
>>
>> As a safety measure, `git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream
>> for the current branch, depending on what `push.default` is set to.
>> See the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section below for more on how to set and
>> use upstreams.
>
> The words "may fail" are definitely vague, and I agree it doesn't feel good
> to give a vague explanation like this. But if we think the current
> behaviour is "broken" and hard to understand and that we have to keep it for
> backwards compatibility reasons, giving a slightly vague explanation
> (perhaps with a reference to where someone can read all the gritty
> details) might be the best path.
OK. Thanks for helping me think this through.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 7:07 PM Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
> > My best guess from my experimentation and from reading some
> > of the commit messages/code is that the rules for how
> > `push.default=simple` works are something like:
> >
> > 1. If the remote you're pushing to is the remote that `git pull`
> > would normally pull from if run without any arguments,
> > then require the user to set an upstream
> > (with the idea that the remote is somehow "special"
> > and should be protected from accidental pushes)
>
> This is the traditional 'simple'
>
>
> > 2. Otherwise, push to the branch to with the same name
> > without requiring an upstream to be set
>
> This is what 'triangular' feature we saw earlier in the "git log"
> output in my message you are responding to had a few commits for.
>
> > That said, the exact details of how push.default=simple works
> > (ironically) seem complicated enough that I don't think it's worth
> > documenting in detail at the beginning of the `git push` man page.
>
> Totally agreed.
Seconded: Julia and I spent quite a bit of time in Discord trying to
piece this puzzle back together [1], and while I don't think we found
_all_ the commits you listed, we found most of them. My summary was
> I think the logic is:
>
> - pushing to the same remote you pull from? Only if @{upstream} is set (?? and maybe something about branch name matching, i don't remember),
> - pushing somewhere else? Pushes to destination=same name
[1]: https://discord.com/channels/1042895022950994071/1412969828066787462
Getting a clear picture _somewhere_ of this default would probably be nice.
--
D. Ben Knoble
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@1d9dcce. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@7d9a174. |
|
This branch is now known as |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@e8b32ba. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@9d1a32d. |
|
There was a status update in the "Cooking" section about the branch Documentation updates. source: <[email protected]> |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@9cc8d22. |
jvns
force-pushed
the
clarify-push
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0555a2c to
61c7a16
Compare
From user feedback, 5 users are unsure what "ref" and/or "objects" means in this context. 3 users said they don't know what "complete the refs" means. Many users also commented that receive hooks do not seem like the most important thing to know about `git push`, and that this information should not be the second sentence in the man page. Use more familiar language to make it more accessible to users who do not know what a "ref" is and move the "hooks" comment to the end. Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
From user feedback: one user mentioned that they don't know what the
term "upstream branch" means. As far as I can tell, the most complete
description is under the `--track` option in `git branch`. Upstreams
are an important concept in Git and the `git branch` man page is not an
obvious place for that information to live.
There's also a very terse description of "upstream branch" in the
glossary that's missing a lot of key information, like the fact that the
upstream is used by `git status` and `git pull`, as well as a
description in `git-config` in `branch.<name>.remote` which doesn't
explain the relationship to `git status` either.
Since the `git pull`, `git push`, and `git fetch` man pages already
include sections on REMOTES and the syntax for URLs, add a section on
UPSTREAM BRANCHES to `urls-remotes.adoc`.
In the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, cover the various ways that
upstreams branches are automatically set in Git, since users may
mistakenly think that their branch does not have an upstream branch if
they didn't explicitly set one.
A terminology note: Git uses two terms for this concept:
- "tracking" as in "the tracking information for the 'foo' branch"
or the `--track` option to `git branch`
- "upstream" or "upstream branch", as in `git push --set-upstream`.
This term is also used in the `git rebase` man page to refer to the
first argument to `git rebase`, as well as in `git pull` to refer to
the branch which is going to be merged into the current branch ("merge
the upstream branch into the current branch")
Use "upstream branch" as a heading for this concept even though the term
"upstream branch" is not always used strictly in the sense of "the
tracking information for the current branch". "Upstream" is used much
more often than "tracking" in the Git docs to refer to this concept and
the goal is to help users understand the docs.
Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
It's not obvious that "`branch.*.remote` configuration"` refers to the upstream, so say "upstream" instead. The sentence is also quite hard to parse right now, use "defaults to" to simplify it. Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
From user feedback: 6 users says they found the "what to push"
paragraphs confusing, for many different reasons, including:
* what does "..." in <refspec>... mean?
* "consult XXX configuration" is hard to parse
* it refers to the `git-config` man page even though the config
information for `git push` is included in this man page under
CONFIGURATION
* the default ("push to a branch with the same name") is what they use
99% of the time, they would have expected it to appear earlier instead
of at the very end
* not understanding what the term "upstream" means in Git
("are branches tracked by some system besides their names?"")
Also, the current explanation of `push.default=simple` ("the
current branch is pushed to the corresponding upstream branch, but
as a safety measure, the push is aborted if the upstream branch
does not have the same name as the local one.") is not accurate:
`push.default=simple` does not always require you to set a corresponding
upstream branch.
Address all of these by
* using a numbered "in order of precedence" list
* giving a more accurate explanation of how `push.default=simple` works
* giving a little bit of context around "upstream branch": it's
something that you may have to set explicitly
* referring to the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section
The default behaviour is still discussed pretty late but it should be
easier to skim now to get to the relevant information.
In "`git push` may fail if...", I'm intentionally being vague about
what exactly `git push` does, because (as discussed on the mailing list)
the behaviour of `push.default=simple` is very confusing, perhaps broken,
and certainly not worth trying to explain in an introductory context.
`push.default.simple` sometimes requires you to set an upstream and
sometimes doesn't and the exact conditions under which it does/doesn't
are hard to describe.
Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
What happens if you run `git push` without any arguments is actually extremely complex to explain, as discussed in the previous commit. But it's very easy to explain what `git push <remote> <branch>` does, so start the man page by explaining what that does. The hope is that someone could just stop reading the man page here and never learn anything else about `git push`, and that would be fine. Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
| You can make interesting things happen to a repository | ||
| every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there. See | ||
| documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1]. | ||
| The `<repository>` argument defaults to the upstream for the current branch, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
> +(in order of precedence):
> +
> +1. The `<refspec>` argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin main`)
> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the repository being pushed to
> +3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
> + which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
> + See the <<CONFIGURATION,CONFIGURATION>> section below for more on `push.default`.
> +
> +`git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream for the current branch,
> +depending on what `push.default` is set to.
> +See the <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,UPSTREAM BRANCHES>> section below for more
> +on how to set and use upstreams.
Reads well, does not tell any lies, and I like it.
> @@ -696,7 +698,7 @@ a `git gc` command on the origin repository.
>
> include::transfer-data-leaks.adoc[]
>
> -CONFIGURATION
> +CONFIGURATION[[CONFIGURATION]]
> -------------
Looking at what we have in previous steps (e.g., post context of
1/5, the title of the new section in 2/5), I think you'd need to
elongate the underline.
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@5f7d0e3. |
|
|
||
| ------------ | ||
| HEAD:refs/heads/<head> | ||
| ------------ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> +You can set an upstream branch explicitly with
> +`git push --set-upstream <remote> <branch>` or `git branch --track`,
I am wondering if this confuses beginners, appearing as if the
latter does not need any other command line arguments, as the former
does say two pieces of information needs to be given.
> +but Git will often automatically set the upstream for you, for example:
> +
> +* When you clone a repository, Git will automatically set the upstream
> + for the default branch.
> +* If you have the `push.autoSetupRemote` configuration option set,
> + `git push` will automatically set the upstream the first time you push
> + a branch.
> +* Checking out a remote-tracking branch with `git checkout <branch>`
> + will automatically create a local branch with that name and set
> + the upstream to the remote branch.
> +
> +[NOTE]
> +Upstream branches are sometimes referred to as "tracking information",
> +as in "set the branch's tracking information".
Everything else looked great. Thanks for working on this.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, at 7:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> +You can set an upstream branch explicitly with
>> +`git push --set-upstream <remote> <branch>` or `git branch --track`,
>
> I am wondering if this confuses beginners, appearing as if the
> latter does not need any other command line arguments, as the former
> does say two pieces of information needs to be given.
That makes sense.
I tried to read the documentation for `git branch --track` to figure out how
to give an example, but I found it very hard to understand how it's
intended to be used since there are so many options for `--track=`.
Usually when I'm creating a new branch, I want to set an upstream
which doesn't exist yet on the remote, and I couldn't figure out whether
or not it's possible to do that with `git branch --track`.
My best idea right now is to delete the mention of `git branch --track`
here if I can't figure out how it's intended to be used.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
> My best idea right now is to delete the mention of `git branch --track`
> here if I can't figure out how it's intended to be used.
As we do not have to be exhausitive here, it is a good way out.
|
|
||
| ------------ | ||
| HEAD:refs/heads/<head> | ||
| ------------ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Jean-Noël AVILA wrote (reply to this):
On Tuesday, 30 September 2025 21:58:31 CEST Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
wrote:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> From user feedback: one user mentioned that they don't know what the
> term "upstream branch" means. As far as I can tell, the most complete
> description is under the `--track` option in `git branch`. Upstreams
> are an important concept in Git and the `git branch` man page is not an
> obvious place for that information to live.
>
> There's also a very terse description of "upstream branch" in the
> glossary that's missing a lot of key information, like the fact that the
> upstream is used by `git status` and `git pull`, as well as a
> description in `git-config` in `branch.<name>.remote` which doesn't
> explain the relationship to `git status` either.
>
> Since the `git pull`, `git push`, and `git fetch` man pages already
> include sections on REMOTES and the syntax for URLs, add a section on
> UPSTREAM BRANCHES to `urls-remotes.adoc`.
>
> In the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, cover the various ways that
> upstreams branches are automatically set in Git, since users may
> mistakenly think that their branch does not have an upstream branch if
> they didn't explicitly set one.
>
> A terminology note: Git uses two terms for this concept:
>
> - "tracking" as in "the tracking information for the 'foo' branch"
> or the `--track` option to `git branch`
> - "upstream" or "upstream branch", as in `git push --set-upstream`.
> This term is also used in the `git rebase` man page to refer to the
> first argument to `git rebase`, as well as in `git pull` to refer to
> the branch which is going to be merged into the current branch ("merge
> the upstream branch into the current branch")
>
> Use "upstream branch" as a heading for this concept even though the term
> "upstream branch" is not always used strictly in the sense of "the
> tracking information for the current branch". "Upstream" is used much
> more often than "tracking" in the Git docs to refer to this concept and
> the goal is to help users understand the docs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc b/Documentation/urls-
remotes.adoc
> index 9b10151198..dba5adeb58 100644
> --- a/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/urls-remotes.adoc
> @@ -92,5 +92,44 @@ git push uses:
> ------------
>
>
> -
> -
> +UPSTREAM BRANCHES[[UPSTREAM-BRANCHES]]
> +--------------------------------------
Please do not put anchors on the same line as the paragraph. The anchor is
attached to the paragraph (the block in asciidoc terminology) if it is not
attached to an inline element. So it can appear just before the block with the
same effect.
Additionally, this clears up the text from the anchor, which is safer for
translation.
[[UPSTREAM-BRANCHES]]
UPSTREAM BRANCHES
> +
> +Branches in Git can optionally have an upstream remote branch.
> +Git defaults to using the upstream branch for remote operations, for
example:
> +
> +* It's the default for `git pull` or `git fetch` with no arguments.
> +* It's the default for `git push` with no arguments, with some exceptions.
> + For example, you can use the `branch.<name>.pushRemote` option to push
> + to a different remote than you pull from, and by default with
> + `push.default=simple` the upstream branch you configure must have
> + the same name.
> +* Various commands, including `git checkout` and `git status`, will
> + show you how many commits have been added to your current branch and
> + the upstream since you forked from it, for example "Your branch and
> + 'origin/main' have diverged, and have 2 and 3 different commits each
> + respectively".
> +
> +The upstream is stored in `.git/config`, in the "remote" and "merge"
> +fields. For example, if `main`'s upstream is `origin/main`:
> +
> + [branch "main"]
> + remote = origin
> + merge = refs/heads/main
> +
Please mark the code block with a dedicated fence:
----
[branch "main"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/main
----
using tabs may lead to issues if the text is modified later.
> +You can set an upstream branch explicitly with
> +`git push --set-upstream <remote> <branch>` or `git branch --track`,
> +but Git will often automatically set the upstream for you, for example:
> +
> +* When you clone a repository, Git will automatically set the upstream
> + for the default branch.
> +* If you have the `push.autoSetupRemote` configuration option set,
> + `git push` will automatically set the upstream the first time you push
> + a branch.
> +* Checking out a remote-tracking branch with `git checkout <branch>`
> + will automatically create a local branch with that name and set
> + the upstream to the remote branch.
> +
> +[NOTE]
> +Upstream branches are sometimes referred to as "tracking information",
> +as in "set the branch's tracking information".
Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
>> +UPSTREAM BRANCHES[[UPSTREAM-BRANCHES]]
>> +--------------------------------------
>
> Please do not put anchors on the same line as the paragraph.
Thanks, will fix. I just copied that from elsewhere in the
documentation, but I agree the anchors should be on the line above.
>> +The upstream is stored in `.git/config`, in the "remote" and "merge"
>> +fields. For example, if `main`'s upstream is `origin/main`:
>> +
>> + [branch "main"]
>> + remote = origin
>> + merge = refs/heads/main
>> +
>
> Please mark the code block with a dedicated fence:
>
> ----
> [branch "main"]
> remote = origin
> merge = refs/heads/main
> ----
>
> using tabs may lead to issues if the text is modified later.
Can do -- previously I was using backticks but they didn't work, so I
switched to indenting it as discussed here:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected]/
But I can use ---- instead.
It might be useful to document both of those in the part of
CodingGuidelines that explains documentation formatting,
I don't see them there.
|
User |
| You can make interesting things happen to a repository | ||
| every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there. See | ||
| documentation for linkgit:git-receive-pack[1]. | ||
| The `<repository>` argument defaults to the upstream for the current branch, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Jean-Noël AVILA wrote (reply to this):
On Tuesday, 30 September 2025 21:58:33 CEST Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
wrote:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> From user feedback: 6 users says they found the "what to push"
> paragraphs confusing, for many different reasons, including:
>
> * what does "..." in <refspec>... mean?
> * "consult XXX configuration" is hard to parse
> * it refers to the `git-config` man page even though the config
> information for `git push` is included in this man page under
> CONFIGURATION
> * the default ("push to a branch with the same name") is what they use
> 99% of the time, they would have expected it to appear earlier instead
> of at the very end
> * not understanding what the term "upstream" means in Git
> ("are branches tracked by some system besides their names?"")
>
> Also, the current explanation of `push.default=simple` ("the
> current branch is pushed to the corresponding upstream branch, but
> as a safety measure, the push is aborted if the upstream branch
> does not have the same name as the local one.") is not accurate:
> `push.default=simple` does not always require you to set a corresponding
> upstream branch.
>
> Address all of these by
>
> * using a numbered "in order of precedence" list
> * giving a more accurate explanation of how `push.default=simple` works
> * giving a little bit of context around "upstream branch": it's
> something that you may have to set explicitly
> * referring to the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section
>
> The default behaviour is still discussed pretty late but it should be
> easier to skim now to get to the relevant information.
>
> In "`git push` may fail if...", I'm intentionally being vague about
> what exactly `git push` does, because (as discussed on the mailing list)
> the behaviour of `push.default=simple` is very confusing, perhaps broken,
> and certainly not worth trying to explain in an introductory context.
> `push.default.simple` sometimes requires you to set an upstream and
> sometimes doesn't and the exact conditions under which it does/doesn't
> are hard to describe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-push.adoc | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index acdf25e5cd..2848cf2e1f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -26,18 +26,20 @@ that isn't already on the remote.
> The `<repository>` argument defaults to the upstream for the current
branch,
> or `origin` if there's no configured upstream.
>
> -When the command line does not specify what to push with `<refspec>...`
> -arguments or `--all`, `--mirror`, `--tags` options, the command finds
> -the default `<refspec>` by consulting `remote.*.push` configuration,
> -and if it is not found, honors `push.default` configuration to decide
> -what to push (See linkgit:git-config[1] for the meaning of `push.default`).
> -
> -When neither the command-line nor the configuration specifies what to
> -push, the default behavior is used, which corresponds to the `simple`
> -value for `push.default`: the current branch is pushed to the
> -corresponding upstream branch, but as a safety measure, the push is
> -aborted if the upstream branch does not have the same name as the
> -local one.
> +To decide which branches, tags, or other refs to push, Git uses
> +(in order of precedence):
> +
> +1. The `<refspec>` argument(s) (for example `main` in `git push origin
main`)
> + or the `--all`, `--mirror`, or `--tags` options
> +2. The `remote.*.push` configuration for the repository being pushed to
> +3. The `push.default` configuration. The default is `push.default=simple`,
> + which will push to a branch with the same name as the current branch.
> + See the <<CONFIGURATION,CONFIGURATION>> section below for more on
Good: using the cross-reference with custom label is translator's friendly.
Thank you.
> `push.default`. +
> +`git push` may fail if you haven't set an upstream for the current branch,
> +depending on what `push.default` is set to.
> +See the <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,UPSTREAM BRANCHES>> section below for more
> +on how to set and use upstreams.
>
> You can make interesting things happen to a repository
> every time you push into it, by setting up 'hooks' there. See
> @@ -696,7 +698,7 @@ a `git gc` command on the origin repository.
>
> include::transfer-data-leaks.adoc[]
>
> -CONFIGURATION
> +CONFIGURATION[[CONFIGURATION]]
> -------------
Same remark concerning anchors.
Otherwise, LGTM
|
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this): On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 3:58 PM Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
> changes in v4:
>
> * Add "the simplest way to push is git push <remote> <branch>" at the
> beginning since (as discussed) this is the form of git push that's
> easiest to explain.
> * Remove "as a safety measure" since (as discussed with Junio) the reason
> that git push sometimes requires you to set an upstream is very
> confusing, and "as a safety measure..." makes it sound more principled
> than it is. Also update the commit message to say that the previous
> explanation was not describing push.default=simple's behaviour
> accurately.
> * Reword "To decide which repository to push to..." because I felt like it
> was still phrased in a clunky way.
> * Make UPSTREAM BRANCHES and CONFIGURATION into actual links in the HTML
> docs
> * Fix formatting in UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, from Junio's review
> * Fix some commit message mistakes, from Junio's review
Great work.
> 4: be6453d010 ! 4: c1d4ea8d27 doc: git-push: clarify "what to push"
> @@ Commit message
> * not understanding what the term "upstream" means in Git
> ("are branches tracked by some system besides their names?"")
>
> - Address all of these by using a numbered "in order of precedence" list
> - (similar to the previous commit), by giving a little bit of context
> - around "upstream branch": it's something that you may have to set
> - explicitly, and referring to the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section.
> + Also, the current explanation of `push.default=simple` ("the
> + current branch is pushed to the corresponding upstream branch, but
> + as a safety measure, the push is aborted if the upstream branch
> + does not have the same name as the local one.") is not accurate:
> + `push.default=simple` does not always require you to set a corresponding
> + upstream branch.
> +
> + Address all of these by
> +
> + * using a numbered "in order of precedence" list
> + * giving a more accurate explanation of how `push.default=simple` works
> + * giving a little bit of context around "upstream branch": it's
> + something that you may have to set explicitly
> + * referring to the new UPSTREAM BRANCHES section
>
> The default behaviour is still discussed pretty late but it should be
> easier to skim now to get to the relevant information.
>
> + In "`git push` may fail if...", I'm intentionally being vague about
> + what exactly `git push` does, because (as discussed on the mailing list)
> + the behaviour of `push.default=simple` is very confusing, perhaps broken,
> + and certainly not worth trying to explain in an introductory context.
> + `push.default.simple` sometimes requires you to set an upstream and
Rather, push.default=simple?
--
D. Ben Knoble |
| Updates remote refs using local refs, while sending objects | ||
| necessary to complete the given refs. | ||
| Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote | ||
| repository from your local repository, and sends all necessary data |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 3:58 PM Julia Evans via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> What happens if you run `git push` without any arguments is actually
> extremely complex to explain, as discussed in the previous commit.
>
> But it's very easy to explain what `git push <remote> <branch>` does, so
> start the man page by explaining what that does.
>
> The hope is that someone could just stop reading the man page here and
> never learn anything else about `git push`, and that would be fine.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-push.adoc | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.adoc b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> index 2848cf2e1f..c0e743d4a8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.adoc
> @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ Updates one or more branches, tags, or other references in a remote
> repository from your local repository, and sends all necessary data
> that isn't already on the remote.
>
> +The simplest way to push is `git push <remote> <branch>`.
> +`git push origin main` will push the local `main` branch to the `main`
> +branch on the remote named `origin`.
Perhaps "For example," to avoid starting with punctuation/commands?
I'm not sure if that kind of thing is actually confusing for readers
or not, though. If not, I'll stop recommending such changes.
--
D. Ben KnobleThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
>> +The simplest way to push is `git push <remote> <branch>`.
>> +`git push origin main` will push the local `main` branch to the `main`
>> +branch on the remote named `origin`.
>
> Perhaps "For example," to avoid starting with punctuation/commands?
> I'm not sure if that kind of thing is actually confusing for readers
> or not, though. If not, I'll stop recommending such changes.
I don't think I've ever been told by a reader that it's confusing.
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@8eb4456. |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@16e8f1c. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I surveyed 16 Git users about the
git pushman page. Here's a rewrite of the DESCRIPTION section and the definition of<refspec>based on the feedback. The goal is to clarify it while communicating the same information. The most common piece of feedback was that folks didn't understand what the term "ref" means. Most of the users who said they did not understand the term "ref" have been using Git for 10+ years.changes in v2:
push.default=simple's behaviour is not really that simple (perhaps I should think of it as more "safe" than "simple", since "current" seems simpler), so it's more realistic to refer any questions to the CONFIGURATION section which describes the behaviour in more detail.changes in v3:
git pushalso needs to send data in addition to updating the branch, from Junio's reviewpushRemoteandgit checkoutin the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section and be clearer about what's meant by "the relationship between the current branch and the upstream", from Junio's reviewchanges in v4:
git push <remote> <branch>" at the beginning since (as discussed) this is the form ofgit pushthat's easiest to explain.git pushsometimes requires you to set an upstream is very confusing, and "as a safety measure..." makes it sound more principled than it is. Also update the commit message to say that the previous explanation was not describingpush.default=simple's behaviour accurately.cc: "D. Ben Knoble" [email protected]
cc: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" [email protected]
cc: Jean-Noël AVILA [email protected]