From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:38:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Default remote branch for local branch
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:
> 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