Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 24, 2013, 05:40 UTC
Message-ID: <20130924054053.GA6192@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1ezYMSuQRMp_SY1HqLiuyuf0tjuf3Fn6fXF2drODZ_iw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:36:38AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> > 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.
> 
> Yeah, general users don't know what you are talking about when you say that.

Right, I understand your complaint and agree that those terms are potentially confusing.

Show 10 quoted lines

> > I dunno. I don't particularly like any of those, but I really dislike
> > the imprecision of "upstream branch" in this case.
> 
> For most users it's the remote configured by:
> 
> % git branch --set-upstream-to foo
> % git checkout -b foo origin/foo
> % git checkout -t -b foo bar
> 
> So when they read "upstream branch" they know from where it got configured.

Yes, but it is also wrong, in the sense that the upstream branch is unrelated. You are giving breadcrumbs to users who know "upstream branch" as a concept and nothing else, but you are misleading users who know that branch.*.remote exists.

I was hoping you might suggest something that can help both users by being both precise and giving the appropriate breadcrumbs.

-Peff