[MERGE] make 'push' default to parent branch

[Scott Scriven]

* Daniel Watkins <daniel at daniel-watkins.co.uk> wrote:
> The other side of the argument is that:
> "The current behaviour is guaranteed to fail before it can 
> cause any damage, but the default URL approach will sometimes 
> just break things."

This is a good point.  It seems like the main reason not to push 
until configured explicitly; perhaps the only reason.

* Colin D Bennett <colin at gibibit.com> wrote:
> The situation is different for a pull, ...  the target of 
> modifications due to a pull is clear to anyone executing a pull 
> command.

Where I disagree is that I think the target of a push is also 
pretty clear.  At least, for anyone who is accustomed to a 
different SCM tool (since git, hg, bitkeeper, darcs, svn, and cvs 
all send changes back to their original upstream source by 
default), and for many who have no relevant experience at all (if 
the system knows only one URL, it's a reasonable default).

What I find confusing or surprising is having "commit" behave 
differently in different branches, recording changes locally 
sometimes and pushing changes upstream at other times.  I'd be a 
lot more likely to break the mainline through an unexpected 
"commit" side effect than through an accidental "push".  So, I 
disagree with the advice that users should use a bound branch if 
they want "push" and "pull" to use the same URL.


-- Scott