Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior

> On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:39:06PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:44:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > How about doing this?  The difference this time around is that
> > > if you have non-wildcard refspec listed first, which usually
> > > is the case for people with established git workflow with
> > > existing repositories, we use the old-and-proven rule to
> > > merge the first set of refs.  An earlier round botched this
> > > completely by basing the logic on lack of branch.*.merge,
> > > which broke for many people.
> > 
> > Updated man page assuming that change; does this look any better?
> 
> Also, resend of the following patch:
> 
> --b.
> 
> [PATCH] Documentation: remove master:origin example from pull-fetch-param.txt
> 
> This is no longer a useful example.
> 
> Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
> ---
>  Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt |    4 ----
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> index e852f41..8d4e950 100644
> --- a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
> @@ -39,10 +39,6 @@ checkout -b my-B remote-B`).  Run `git fetch` to keep track of
>  the progress of the remote side, and when you see something new
>  on the remote branch, merge it into your development branch with
>  `git pull . remote-B`, while you are on `my-B` branch.
> -The common `Pull: master:origin` mapping of a remote `master`
> -branch to a local `origin` branch, which is then merged to a
> -local development branch, again typically named `master`, is made
> -when you run `git clone` for you to follow this pattern.

>  +
>  [NOTE]
>  There is a difference between listing multiple <refspec>
> -- 
> 1.5.0.rc0.gac28
> 
>