From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:11:26 GMT
Subject: Re: default behaviour for `gitmerge` (no arguments)
Message-ID: <7vhbqr2nxt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100112162355.GB25092@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Hmm. If we had the oft-discussed-but-never-agreed-upon shorthand for
> "the upstream of" then we wouldn't need a special merge option. You
> could just do:
>
>   git merge %HEAD ;# (or git merge %, IIRC the proposal correctly)

I don't think "whatever _HEAD_ tracks" makes sense at the semantic level
(i.e. you don't do "branch.HEAD.merge") but a syntax for "whatever the
named _branch_ tracks" with "if a branch is not named, the current branch
is implied" (i.e. the one in parentheses) would.

It is an entirely different matter what the special syntax to trigger that
"upstream-ness" should be.  I vaguely recall @{upstream} or @{u} were the
concensus?