Re: [PATCH] Add branch.*.localmerge and documentation update

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 8, 2006, 22:34 UTC
Message-ID: <7v1wnaggp7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200612082301.57037.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Friday 08 December 2006 22:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Santi Béjar" <sbejar@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> wrote:
>> >> Clarify the meaning of branch.*.merge option and add a similar
>> >> branch.*.localmerge option, which can be used to specify a local
>> >> tracking branch to be merged by default.
>> 
>> I am not so sure about the "localmerge" stuff anymore.
>> 
>> What convenience would it buy us (including but not limited to
>> new people), and if there is any, would that outweigh the
>> potential confusion factor to have two different configuration
>> variables that do exactly the same thing whose sole difference
>> is which side of the fetched branch namespace it uses to specify
>> the merge source?
>
> I just came up with a concrete patch.
> I am not saying that this is the only true solution.

I admit that I do not use branch.*.merge and I do not know what people find lacking in what Santi did in late September with commit 5372806. What problem are we trying to solve (not a rhetorical question -- I am truly lost here)? Is it only a confusion between remote and local, or is there something that cannot be expressed with the current scheme?

> Actually, Jakubs one with allowing arbitrary refspecs is nice.
> The only problem is that it is not consistent which refspec
> shortcuts otherwise, or?

Actually I had a quite opposite reaction about allowing src:dst notation there. Does it solve any real problem? It is unclear to me. On the other hand, it gives a false impression that it can be used instead of remote.*.fetch to copy the remote branch into local tracking branch, and raises other questions such as what should happen when you have both, i.e. src:dst is given to both remote.*.fetch and branch.*.merge, and they do not agree. Which means it only adds to the confusion.

So I do not think it is worth spending brain cycles talking about that particular one; it does not even have a patch to implement it.

But you have a concrete patch, and if it is fixing a real problem, then that is worth talking about. I just do not know if a problem exists, other than that people can get confused and write local tracking branch name by mistake when it should be remote branch name.