Is auto-track-bookmarks really a viable replacement for push-new-bookmark?

[BatmanAoD]

I don't understand the change in 0.36 that deprecated push-new-bookmark. The release notes state that auto-track-bookmarks replaced that config option, but as far as I can tell, there's no way to configure it so that it behaves the same way push-new-bookmark does.

With push-new-bookmark, bookmarks created locally can be pushed without explicitly tracking them first. But auto-track-bookmarks is based on bookmark names and no other metadata, so the only way to get the old behavior is to use a standard prefix for all your bookmarks.

This is recommended by the docs, but it's bizarre to me. Some teams have existing standards for git branches that shouldn't be broken (e.g. "branch names must begin with the ID of the ticket you're resolving"). And ignoring that, creating and remembering to use a naming convention for all branches that I ever want to push to a remote just seems like a weird requirement to impose on all users.

Is there something I'm missing?

[joyously]

It says the new option takes a revset, but what you are talking about is the functionality. The old option was about which local bookmarks to push, whereas the new one mostly talks about which bookmarks will be tracked on a remote (the docs I found in a search refer to importing all remote bookmarks).
Also, the tests that showed up from my search all refer to either * or ~*.

[BatmanAoD]

Sorry, what says the new option takes a revset? The docs say "The value is a string pattern that matches the names of the bookmarks to track," and it doesn't look like revsets are mentioned.

The old option was about which local bookmarks to push, whereas the new one mostly talks about which bookmarks will be tracked on a remote.

💯

[joyously]

I think I misread it. In the CHANGELOG it says:

remotes.<name>.auto-track-bookmarks is now parsed the same way they are in revsets and can be combined with logical operators.

[BatmanAoD]

Ah, and "they" refers to "bookmark names" specifically. Yeah, that's not very clear.

[bnjmnt4n]

I think this is addressed by #8545.

[BatmanAoD]

I didn't see that; thanks!