From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:22:09 GMT
Subject: Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config
Message-ID: <20061223062209.GB9396@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vbqlvuoi4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > BTW, is there some explanation why branch.*.merge specifies a _remote_
> > head? The following would make much more sense to me:
> >
> > [branch "master"]
> > remote = origin
> > merge = refs/remotes/origin/master
> 
> Only *if* you store it in that tracking branch.  The name the
> other party gives _do_ matter to you anyway, because you have to
> _know_ it to fetch.  What it does NOT matter is if you use a
> tracking branch, or if you do, which local tracking branch you
> use to track it.

My $0.02 USD (worth almost nothing these days!):

I agree with Junio.  branch.<n>.merge makes sense as the remote name.

-- 
Shawn.