Re: What's in git.git (stable)

From

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

Date

Dec 22, 2006, 21:44 UTC

Message-ID

<7vac1fy5ae.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

In-Reply-To

<Pine.LNX.4.63.0612222141060.19693@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> So, if I understand your option (2) correctly, it complains _only_ if 
> there is at least one branch.*.merge in the config, but not for the 
> current branch?
>
> I think that would safeguard the existing repositories _and_ the new ones, 
> because git-clone sets them up with such an entry to begin with.
>
> If that behaviour was meant by (2), I am all for it.

In any case, here is a patch for discussion.

diff --git a/git-parse-remote.sh b/git-parse-remote.sh
index f163821..b4d071b 100755
--- a/git-parse-remote.sh
+++ b/git-parse-remote.sh
@@ -145,10 +145,22 @@ canon_refs_list_for_fetch () {
 			merge_branches=$(git-repo-config \
 			    --get-all "branch.${curr_branch}.merge")
 		fi
-		# If we are fetching only one branch, then first branch
-		# is the only thing that makes sense to merge anyway,
-		# so there is no point refusing that traditional rule.
-		if test $# != 1 && test "z$merge_branches" = z
+		if test "z$merge_branches" = z &&
+			# If we are fetching only one branch, then
+			# first branch is the only thing that makes
+			# sense to merge anyway, so there is no point
+			# refusing that traditional rule.
+			test $# != 1 &&
+
+			# Also, old timers have been happily working
+			# with the first branch rule without having
+			# any branch.*.merge configuration, so if
+			# there is none, do not bother with this
+			# "newbie protection".  A newly cloned
+			# repository would have branch.master.merge
+			# set for it.
+			git repo-config --get-regexp \
+				'^branch\..*\.merge$' >/dev/null
 		then
 			merge_branches=..this..would..never..match..
 		fi