From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:23:45 GMT
Subject: Re: git pull and merging.
Message-ID: <200612081823.45565.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <8aa486160612071756s18f9530cr7ed26e4b7b47d1de@mail.gmail.com>

On Friday 08 December 2006 02:56, Santi Béjar wrote:
> > [remote "repo"]
> >   url = ...
> >   fetch = branch1
> >   fetch = branch2
> >
> > [branch "mybranch1"]
> >   remote = repo
> >   merge = branch1
> >
> > actually looks fine, and is the only possible way.
> > But still, this does not work.
> 
> It works for me.
> 
> > You have to specify
> >
> >   merge = refs/heads/branch1
> 
> It does not.
> 
> The merge line must match exactly the remote part of the refspec.

Yes, you are right; I just looked it up in git-parse-remote.
Sorry about any confusion.

> 
> >
> > That's confusing (perhaps I can come up with a patch
> > to allow "branch1" alone).
> >
> > So probably the best way is to write some more detailed
> > explanation into the docu ...
> 
> Perhaps that the branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge have the
> equivalent meaning as the parameters of git-pull?

We want to fetch multiple refs from one remote in a row. So what
are you proposing? That branch.<name>.merge has to exactly
specify one remote? I do not think this is needed.

Actually, I am really for a new branch.<name>.localmerge option,
and keeping branch.<name>.merge (but not advertising it).