{"thread":{"id":"6091","subject":"branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name","startedAt":"2006-12-23T09:14:49Z","lastAt":"2006-12-23T14:32:39Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Jakub Narebski","Nicolas Pitre"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"30188","messageId":"emirt5$kh3$2@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"6091","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-23T09:14:49Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-23T09:14:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name\nand relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for\ntracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user\nfriendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...\n\nPerhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)\nidea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code\nit ;-).\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"30199","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612230924110.18171@xanadu.home","threadId":"6091","inReplyTo":"emirt5$kh3$2@sea.gmane.org","subject":"Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name","fromName":"Nicolas Pitre","fromEmail":"nico@cam.org","sentAt":"2006-12-23T14:26:11Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-23T14:26:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"nico@fluxnic.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/702790?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n\n> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name\n> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for\n> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user\n> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...\n> \n> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)\n> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code\n> it ;-).\n\nAdding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.\n\nWhy couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by \nbranch.blah.merge?\n\n\nNicolas\n"},{"id":"30200","messageId":"200612231532.39363.jnareb@gmail.com","threadId":"6091","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612230924110.18171@xanadu.home","subject":"Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-23T14:32:39Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-23T14:32:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Nicolas Pitre wrote:\n> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> \n>> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name\n>> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for\n>> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user\n>> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...\n>> \n>> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)\n>> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code\n>> it ;-).\n> \n> Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.\n> \n> Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by \n> branch.blah.merge?\n\nJunio just implemented that. Although it is a bit of magic (which can bite\nwhen you have remote which is not '.', and which has branches with the same\nnames like some of your local branches, and vice versa). mergeLocal would\nbe unambiguous...\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\n"}]}