Re: What's in git.git (stable)

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2006, 20:56 UTC
Message-ID: <200612222156.21215.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vejqrznwo.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> <opublikowany i wysłany>
>>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Possibilities:
>>> 
>>>  (1) Forget about that "protection" business.  If you do not
>>>      want mistakes, use 'branch.*.merge' but otherwise we will
>>>      continue to follow the good old "first set of branches"
>>>      rule.
>>
>> What about marking default branch to merge explicitely using
>> "Merge:" in remotes/<repo>, or remote.<name>.merge?
> 
> Sorry, how is that an improvement over the current branch.*.merge?
> and how would that help not breaking existing setups?

I meant that in addition to forgetting about "protection" business. This would be intermediate improvement over old behavior, marking clearly which is default branch to merge (with first branch still being default, and perhaps error out if there is _only_ wildcard Pull:/fetch line/variable; the branches marked with + are ineligible as candidate for merge with "first branch being default branch to merge" default).

Perhaps make "protection" business optional, default to on for new users?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland