From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:49:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Git branching & pulling
Message-ID: <200705231149.43245.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vwsz05qcq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Wednesday 23 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Wink Saville" <wink@saville.com> writes:
> 
> >> Creation of a branch from another local one never has created
> >> "branch.x.remote" or "branch.x.merge" entries. I am not even sure
> >> that setting "branch.x.remote" to "." is working in the current version.
> >
> > I tired to create the appropriate entries and it didn't work,
> > but maybe operator error.
> >
> >> BTW: There was some old behavior of "git pull" to always pull the master
> >> branch from remote "origin" without any further parameters. I suppose that
> >> you did not want this to happen in your example above ?!
> >
> > I expected it to pull from its upstream (i.e. the branches parent).
> 
> While "I branched and that means I will always merge from that
> branch" does not hold true for everybody, we do have an option
> to make that easy to work in recent git.  Look in git-branch
> documentation and check autosetupmerge configuration option.

Ah, I stand corrected: I just checked - git already allows to default
to even a local upstream for "git pull", not only a remote tracking
branch.

Very nice.

What about making "git rebase" without arguments default to
the stored upstream?

Josef