[MERGE] make 'push' default to parent branch

[Nicholas Allen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Seems like one solution if the user has not set a push location is to ask

"You have not specified a location to push to. Would you like to use the
parent location (bzr://user@host/path) (y/n)?"

Nick

Scott Scriven wrote:
| * 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
|
|

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIj57H1+i51gqqEGkRAuKnAJ0aXqR1sCTUjzW/IEpoAYDfU/fz/gCfUi1o
OSDOCSjT1abMh9Xz9848wtk=
=BqOI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----