Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Sep 24, 2013, 05:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130924053023.GA5875@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s1FFTS=wOcWBfqg3zt3TO-aM83oXHcGwBcwvt_HnXrn8g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:23:21AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Should this be "upstream remote" rather than "upstream branch"? I don't > > think we should be looking at branch.*.merge at all for git-fetch. > > As a general user, how do I configure the "upstream remote"?
Yeah, it's not a term we use elsewhere, so it's not great. Probably "default remote" would be better, or even just say "branch.*.remote for the current branch" or something.
I dunno. I don't particularly like any of those, but I really dislike the imprecision of "upstream branch" in this case.
-Peff