Re: What does it mean to have multiple upstream tracking branches?
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 3, 2022, 12:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <220303.868rtr42mg.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPMMpoiTJAuadBEOPWOVa-kguSXMDvAhvD22B63QwYpu=H7xEw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 03 2022, Tao Klerks wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Hi, > > In my recent attempt to create a "simple" branch.autosetupmerge > option, I have repeatedly been confused by the enforced rules around > what is and isn't valid for the branch.<name>.merge and > branch.<name>.remote configs. > > Until Josh Steadman's recent work on --track=inherit, the "automatic" > addition of branch.<name>.merge could only ever result in a single > entry. > > Now we support multiple entries being added as a perpetuation of an > existing branch's setup - but what does it *mean*? I could understand > if the idea was to have transparent tracking across multiple remotes > that are supposed to have the same content (eg a single server set up > over multiple protocols), but that does not appear to be possible - > branch.<name>.remote can only have one value. > > Is there any documentation (or could someone provide pointers) as to > when multiple branch.<name>.merge values can make sense and what that > means / what it does?
Can you point out some existing tests where we end up with multiple *.merge values? I looked a bit and couldn't find any.
Or maybe it's only possible to get into that state with some command we have a test blind spot for?