From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:29:45 GMT
Subject: Re: git bug? + question
Message-ID: <20061103202945.GA7585@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061103042540.192bbd18.seanlkml@sympatico.ca>

Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:12:32 +0100
> Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:
> 
> > I would rather see the default pull source of a branch being
> > determined by which branch it was branched off of. But this should
> > mean the same thing in this case. We'd just have to have the heuristic
> > that default pulls from a remotes/*/* branch causes a fetch, while a
> > default pull from a local branch does not.
> 
> Well, when you create a branch a branch.<branch>.merge entry could be
> automatically made so that a merge from the proper place happens.

Yes, definately.  For most people I know that use Git the branch
they branched off of is the one they need to pull in on a regular
basis to keep their topic branch current.  They rarely pull other
branches in.

> But in the absence of any config merge entries, it would be nice to
> default to the same branch name from the remote namespace.  This
> removes the need to create merge entries for the initial clone.
> Of course, currently you have to create branch.<branch>.merge
> entries by hand.

Nack.  I'd rather see the entries added/removed from .git/config when
the branch is created/deleted, just like the ref and the reflog are
created/deleted.  It makes behavior more consistent for the user
and it is mostly self documenting...

	"why is branch FOO pulling FOO by default?  ahhh, its in
	.git/config after git branch FOO FOO."

Same goes for git-clone.  The branch.master.merge=origin/master
entry should be in .git/config file after the clone is complete.

--