From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:18:32 GMT
Subject: Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config
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