From: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:48:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior
Message-ID: <560316.34562.qm@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7omyuaf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Questions:
> >
> > What is the reasonining of defining branch.<name>.merge to point
> > to the "remote's setup"?
> 
> See list archives.  
> 
> Because you are not required to use remote tracking branches.

Then why does it point to the _remote_ mapping?  One shouldn't
care what it is, and how it looks in the remote repo.  That is
handled by [remote].  In [branch] I shouldn't have to have any
absolute references, i.e. branch.<name>.remote points to [remote],
and branch.<name>.merge should only give a _branch_ name,
whose remote-to-local mapping (which preserves the branch name)
can be found by dereferencing branch.<name>.remote to get to
remote.<rname>.fetch.

Think of it as DB schema normalization.

     Luben


> By the way, I think we allow the name of the remote tracking
> branch as well, but we do not advertise it -- always using
> remote's name consistently is much less confusing.
> 
> > The reasoning is that the remote's setup should only leak into
> > [remote] and no further.  I.e. [remote] is the only one concerned
> > with the mapping between the remote repo and the local repo.
> 
> No.  Remote is not about mapping -- if mapping is there you can
> talk about it, but that is optional.
> 
>