The FreeBSD shell converts this expression:
git ${1:+-c push.default="$1"} push
to this when "$1" is not empty:
git "-c push.default=$1" push
which causes git to fail. To avoid this we simply break up the
expansion into two parts so that the whitespace which creates
two arguments instead of one is outside the ${...} like so:
git ${1:+-c} ${1:+push.default="$1"} push
This has the desired effect on all platforms allowing the test
to pass on FreeBSD.
Signed-off-by: Kyle J. McKay <mackyle@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The plan for the push.default transition had all along been
to use the "simple" method rather than "upstream" as a
default if the user did not specify their own push.default
value. Commit 11037ee (push: switch default from "matching"
to "simple", 2013-01-04) tried to implement that by moving
PUSH_DEFAULT_UNSPECIFIED in our switch statement to
fall-through to the PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE case.
When the commit that became 11037ee was originally written,
that would have been enough. We would fall through to
calling setup_push_upstream() with the "simple" parameter
set to 1. However, it was delayed for a while until we were
ready to make the transition in Git 2.0.
And in the meantime, commit ed2b182 (push: change `simple`
to accommodate triangular workflows, 2013-06-19) threw a
monkey wrench into the works. That commit drops the "simple"
parameter to setup_push_upstream, and instead checks whether
the global "push_default" is PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE. This is
right when the user has explicitly configured push.default
to simple, but wrong when we are a fall-through for the
"unspecified" case.
We never noticed because our push.default tests do not cover
the case of the variable being totally unset; they only
check the "simple" behavior itself.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Introduce test_pushdefault_workflows(), and test that all push.default
modes work with central and triangular workflows as expected.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The setup creates two bare repositories: repo1 and repo2, but
test_push_commit() hard-codes checking in repo1 for the actual output.
Generalize it and its caller, test_push_success(), to optionally accept
a third argument to specify the name of the repository to check for
actual output. We will use this in the next patch.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The line
test_config push.default upstream
appears unnecessarily in two tests, as the final test_push_failure sets
push.default before pushing anyway.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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 <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using
the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user
wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the
branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with,
with this command.
However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream"
semantics does not make sense:
- The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By
definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not
know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there",
but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to
integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know
which remote branch to update.
- The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it
does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the
remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in
this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us
where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update.
- The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured,
but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote
named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository
$there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and
this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository
$there.
The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was
not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge
at repository $there, which was totally bogus.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Dennis Kaarsemaker
Kyle J. McKay
Jeff King
Ramkumar Ramachandra
Matthieu Moy
Junio C Hamano