From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:49:40 GMT
Subject: Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config
Message-ID: <20070102144940.GA23932@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vbqlvrldk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 01:51:03AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> If you (or other people) use branch.*.merge, with its value set
> to remote name _and_ local name, and actually verify that either
> form works without confusion, please report back and I'll apply.

This [using tracking branches in branch.*.merge] seems to be working for
me, but it is possible to get some confusing results with it. Try this
config:

[remote "origin"]
  url = /my/other/git/repo
  fetch = refs/heads/master:refs/heads/origin
  fetch = refs/heads/origin:refs/heads/junio
[branch "master"]
  remote = origin
  merge = refs/heads/origin

That is, we have a local tracking branch 'X' which has the same name as
a remote branch 'X'. When we fetch, both will be marked for merge in
FETCH_HEAD, and git-pull will attempt to do an octopus.

Is this too convoluted a config to worry about (no, I don't actually do
this in my repository -- I just constructed the most plausible reason I
could think of for having conflicting names). I actually think having a
branch.*.mergelocal would make just as much sense and would be more
robust (plus, it should be safe and sensible for "git-checkout -b foo
bar" to point branch.foo.mergelocal to refs/heads/bar).

-Peff