From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:32:39 GMT
Subject: Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
Message-ID: <200612231532.39363.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612230924110.18171@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> 
>> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
>> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
>> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
>> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
>> 
>> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
>> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
>> it ;-).
> 
> Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.
> 
> Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by 
> branch.blah.merge?

Junio just implemented that. Although it is a bit of magic (which can bite
when you have remote which is not '.', and which has branches with the same
names like some of your local branches, and vice versa). mergeLocal would
be unambiguous...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland