Re: [PATCH] branch: make sure the upstream remote is configured

From: Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@elego.de>
Date: Jul 26, 2013, 22:29 UTC
Message-ID: <1374877787.2670.6.camel@centaur.cmartin.tk>
In-Reply-To: <20130726184311.GA29799@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 14:43 -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:39:37PM +0200, Carlos Martín Nieto wrote:
> 
> > A command of e.g.
> > 
> >     git push --set-upstream /tmp/t master
> > 
> > will call install_branch_config() with a remote name of "/tmp/t". This
> > function will set the 'branch.master.remote' key to, which is
> > nonsensical as there is no remote by that name.
> 
> Is it nonsensical? It does not make sense for the @{upstream} magic
> token, because we will not have a branch in tracking branch refs/remotes

This was the main point, yes; the only time I've seen it used is by mistake/misunderstanding, and thinking that you wouldn't want to do something like what's below.

You are also unable to do this kind of thing through git-branch, and as it seemed to be an oversight, I wanted to tighten it up.

Show 7 quoted lines

> to point to. But the configuration would still affect how "git pull"
> chooses a branch to fetch and merge.
> 
> I.e., you can currently do:
> 
>   git push --set-upstream /tmp/t master
>   git pull ;# pulls from /tmp/t master

Interestingly, this actually fetches the right branch from the remote. I wasn't expecting something like this to work at all.

Somewhat doubtful that this usage is something you'd really want to do, I see that it does behave properly.

cmn