Re: Default remote branch for local branch

From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Apr 3, 2006, 09:38 UTC
Message-ID: <200604031138.29227.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4430D517.5020205@op5.se>

On Monday 03 April 2006 09:56, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> > 
> > Optionally, branching <new> off from <old> could add <new> as
> > topic branch of <old>: Thus, if you are on <old> and do git-pull,
> > you get <new> merged in.
> > 
> 
> This is clearly insane. If I'm on <old> and want to sync with my 
> upstream source that would be impossible without explicitly telling it 
> *not* to merge with <new>. Iow, this change would (possibly) simplify 
> for the one repo maintainer, but make things harder for the 30-odd 
> developers.

Yes. Therefore I put "optionally" above. But you are right, mixing up "merge upstream" and "merge downstream" into one config option is insane.

Some idea independent but related: I still think it is a better UI of a porcelain to try to note metainfo automatically, ie. storing somewhere that we branched one off another. What about adding "branch.topic" config option for this? "git-branch -t newtopic"/"git-checkout -b newtopic -t" would create a new topic branch, which is remembered in "branch.topic", and "git-pull -t" merges these topic branches? To specify that a remote branch is a topic branch of a given local branch (to be pulled into with "git-pull -t"), we could add "git-branch --add-topic <refspec>|<remoteURL>".

Josef