Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 9, 2007, 16:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20070109161832.GA9577@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070109150524.GB10633@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:05:24AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> There are two advantages I see to putting local branches in branch.*.merge:
Let me add a third:
There are some operations which care about who our upstream is, but didn't necessarily just do a fetch (so FETCH_HEAD is not an option). For example, I have a short porcelain-ish script that formats all of my changes as patches and shows them as a mutt mailbox. If you don't specify an upstream, it uses 'origin'. However, this isn't right if I'm on 'next'. What I _really_ want is to say "a sensible upstream branch for the branch I'm currently on" which is basically what "mergeLocal" would be.
Come to think of it, mergeLocal is a terrible name, since it should really would be for merging, rebasing, and anything else which wanted to say "where did I probably come from?" So perhaps "upstream" would make more sense?
-Peff