Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 3, 2007, 23:02 UTC
Message-ID: <200701040002.20773.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8aa486160701021624v69015fbibb81a99177dd7dfc@mail.gmail.com>

Santi Béjar wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On 1/2/07, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, the local names should matter more when you are doing
>>> local operations. So if you are using mergeLocal to give a
>>> shorthand to "git merge" that does not explicitly say what to
>>> merge, the above discussion does not apply. But if that is the
>>> case, mergeLocal should also not affect the selection of
>>> branches to be merged when "git pull" happens from a remote
>>> either.
>>
>> You can always use remote = ".", and then remote and local branches
>> are the same...
> 
> Currently it does not work.

Fact.

I remember that there was proposal of having branch.<name>.remote=. and branch.<name>.merge=<ref> to make "git pull" on branch <name> do "git pull . <ref>". There was some discussion about this; perhaps it was not accepted (or forgotten to be accepted after resolving discussion).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland