Skip to contentSkip to conversation

doc: clarify difference between `push.default` `simple` and `current`

PATCH In review Dan Fabulich via GitGitGadget 2 participants 2 messages Jul 23, 2025 Documentation

lore
Share & tools
lore

Dan Fabulich via GitGitGadget

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 doc: clarify difference between `push.default` `simple` and `current`

From: Dan Fabulich <[email protected]>

The documentation made simple and current sound identical. The difference is that simple strictly checks that the upstream tracking branch's name matches the current branch's name.

Signed-off-by Dan Fabulich <[email protected]>

---
doc: clarify difference between push.default simple and current

Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1944%2Fdfabulich%2Fgit-config-simple-doc-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1944/dfabulich/git-config-simple-doc-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1944

 Documentation/config/push.adoc | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Documentation/config/push.adoc +9 -7
index 0acbbea18a3..3e03cb31606 100644
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ push.default::
 	Different values are well-suited for
 	specific workflows; for instance, in a purely central workflow
 	(i.e. the fetch source is equal to the push destination),
-	`upstream` is probably what you want.  Possible values are:
+	`simple` is probably what you want.  Possible values are:
 +
 --
 

@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ push.default::
   given. This is primarily meant for people who want to
   avoid mistakes by always being explicit.
 
-* `current` - push the current branch to update a branch with the same
-  name on the receiving end.  Works in both central and non-central
+* `current` - push the current branch to update the branch with the same
+  name on the remote.  Works in both central and non-central
   workflows.
 
 * `upstream` - push the current branch back to the branch whose

@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ push.default::
 
 * `tracking` - This is a deprecated synonym for `upstream`.
 
-* `simple` - push the current branch with the same name on the remote.
+* `simple` - push the current branch to its upstream tracking branch,
+  but only if the upstream tracking branch has the same name as the
+  current branch. (`simple` will fail with an error if the upstream
+  tracking branch's name doesn't match the current branch's name.)
 +
-If you are working on a centralized workflow (pushing to the same repository you
-pull from, which is typically `origin`), then you need to configure an upstream
-branch with the same name.
+`simple` will also fail if the current branch doesn't have an upstream
+tracking branch configured, unless `push.autoSetupRemote` is enabled.
 +
 This mode is the default since Git 2.0, and is the safest option suited for
 beginners.

base-commit: 3f2a94875d2f41fe4758a439f68d8b73cfb19d0f

Signature · 1 line
gitgitgadget
#1 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Dan Fabulich via GitGitGadget

From: Dan Fabulich <[email protected]>

The documentation made simple and current sound identical. The difference is that simple strictly checks that the upstream tracking branch's name matches the current branch's name.

All of the above are correct, and a patch that sticks to fixing that would have given us a great improvement.

Thanks for working on this documentation update, but it seems some unrelated changes are mixed in.

Documentation/config/push.adoc push.default:: · line 18

Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/config/push.adoc +1 -1
 	Different values are well-suited for
 	specific workflows; for instance, in a purely central workflow
 	(i.e. the fetch source is equal to the push destination),
-	`upstream` is probably what you want.  Possible values are:
+	`simple` is probably what you want.  Possible values are:

This change is not explained/justified at all why it was part of the patch in the proposed log message.

And I do not think this is a good change. upstream is recommended for most people when they employ a purely central workflow. You can start working from the common 'master', even on multiple topics in parallel at the same time, and perform "git push" with push.default set to 'upstream'. With 'simple' you cannot.

    $ git checkout -t -b theme1 origin/master
    ... work work work ...
    $ git checkout -t -b theme2 origin/master
    ... work work work ...
    ... changes for theme2 become complete first ...
    $ git push

Here, if your push.default is set to 'upstream', your theme2 updates their master, which is exactly what you want. Then

    $ git fetch origin
    $ git rebase origin/master theme1
    ... rebased on updated 'master' at theirs --- at least it should
    ... contain what we did on our theme2 topic, but possibly
    ... changes from other people.
    ... more work ...
    $ git push

Again, your theme1 updates their master, which is exactly what you want.

Documentation/config/push.adoc push.default:: · line 28

Quoted 9 lines
Documentation/config/push.adoc +2 -2
@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ push.default::
   given. This is primarily meant for people who want to
   avoid mistakes by always being explicit.
 
-* `current` - push the current branch to update a branch with the same
-  name on the receiving end.  Works in both central and non-central
+* `current` - push the current branch to update the branch with the same
+  name on the remote.  Works in both central and non-central
   workflows.

Again, a change that is not explained/justified. "a" -> "the" I can understand (i.e. a branch with the same name is unique over there, so "the" is more appropriate), but not the other one.

Documentation/config/push.adoc push.default:: · line 41

Quoted 7 lines
Documentation/config/push.adoc +4 -1
 * `tracking` - This is a deprecated synonym for `upstream`.
 
-* `simple` - push the current branch with the same name on the remote.
+* `simple` - push the current branch to its upstream tracking branch,
+  but only if the upstream tracking branch has the same name as the
+  current branch. (`simple` will fail with an error if the upstream
+  tracking branch's name doesn't match the current branch's name.)

That is correct. The additional text may be somewhat helpful for somebody who just got an error message and wants to understand where the error comes from.

But stepping back a bit, is understanding why it failed the primary thing our documentation should aim for? I'd rather see our documentation help the user achieve what they wanted to do in the first place. I.e., Be able to push without an error to publish their work. And for that "this will fail when X" is less helpful than "this is appropriate if you work this way."

simple - this is like upstream but with additional restriction that the local branch must be named the same as its upstream branch. Suitable with a very simple centralized workflow, where you fork off of their 'master' branch to create your own 'master', work there, and push the branch back.

Documentation/config/push.adoc push.default:: · line 42

Quoted 4 lines

+

Documentation/config/push.adoc +0 -3
-If you are working on a centralized workflow (pushing to the same repository you
-pull from, which is typically `origin`), then you need to configure an upstream
-branch with the same name.

I do not think this removal is explained/justified, either. Those who set push.default to 'simple' while using the centralized workflow must use one-to-one correspondence, so this advice is very relevant. What makes it a good idea to remove it?

Thanks.