Re: Default remote branch for local branch

From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
Date: Apr 1, 2006, 04:18 UTC
Message-ID: <1143865123.14465.26.camel@dv>
In-Reply-To: <7vodzmngfp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hello, Junio!

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 19:05 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

>  - Multiple subsystem maintainer trees tracked in the same local
>    repository.  Most generally, two local branches per each
>    remote head can be used (one tracking branch to fetch into,
>    another to build your changes based on it).  Alternatively,
>    you can use one local branch per each remote head without
>    using any tracking branch.
> 
> Your proposal to give default branch to pull from per the local
> branch would help only the last case.

Exactly. I tried to track the main Linus repository and Jeff Garzik's netdev in one place. Then I discovered that my repository if full of unintended merges made by "stg pull".

Show 14 quoted lines

> The first one you do not
> switch between local branches at all and pull from many
> different places; the second is to merge from different topic
> branches from time to time and does not benefit from fixed
> configuration; the third does not even need configuration.
> 
> Maybe you would want something like this.
>
> In $GIT_DIR/config:
> 
> 	[pull]
> 	origin = linus for master
>         origin = irq-pio of libata for ata-irq-pio
>         origin = pata-drivers of libata for ata-pata

First of all, using "origin" on every line carries to little information.

Secondly, I think the relationship should be between a local development branch and a local tracking branch. After all, all remote data is placed on a local tracking branch first. It's better not to jump over layers of abstraction. Suppose I want to update "masterB". I tell git to sync "originB" first. git already has rules what to do if it should sync "originB". Let's not supersede those rules.

I would write the config like this:

[branch-upstream] master = linus ata-irq-pio = irq-pio ata-pata = pata-drivers

Show 12 quoted lines

> While we are on the topic, it _might_ be worthwhile to think
> about revamping the syntax of $GIT_DIR/remotes file, maybe even
> breaking backward compatibility.  The Pull: lines can be
> independently specified which gives flexibility, but I suspect
> local tracking branches from the same remote tend to live in the
> same place; IOW, you would probably not do something like:
> 
> 	URL: git://git.kernel.org/.../jgarzik/libata-dev.git
> 	Pull: refs/heads/irq-pio:refs/remotes/libata/irq-pio
> 	Pull: refs/heads/pata-drivers:refs/heads/pata-drivers
> 
> in practice.

Sorry, I don't understand this part.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin