Re: [PATCH 1/3] git-branch: add --track and --no-track options

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mar 6, 2007, 07:40 UTC
Message-ID: <7vlkiastu8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <45ED179B.90500@lu.unisi.ch>

Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@lu.unisi.ch> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

>> Hmm. I think your use of 'mytopic' is very good for the purpose
>> of illustration. It makes clear which configuration takes name
>> from what. So I like your first paragraph. However, one reason
>> people like the separate remote layout is that it allows you to
>> name your own branch identically with that of the other side, so
>> in that sense, the description in your second paragraph matches
>> the real-life usage better. What I am getting at is that (1)
>> these two paragraphs are inconsistent, (2) there is a reason to
>> prefer the description in the first paragraph, and (3) there is
>> another reason to prefer the description in the second one.
>
> Ok, I'll prefer using "mytopic" anywhere.
>
>> As Johannes already pointed this out, I think allowing this to
>> be controlled per remote is nice but overkill.  A single boolean
>> configuration, say "branch.autosetupmerge", would suffice.
>
> In this case, patch 2/3 should also be withdrawn, right?

Do you mean you would agree that it is overkill? Just in case; you do not have to necessarily agree with me but convince me your way, if you feel I am wrong.

If so, yeah, 2/3 needs a minor adjustment since the configuration will not be on remote.* but one configuration variable.

Also I agree with many points Dscho made. I understand you agreed to avoid asprintf() from portability worries, which I think is a sensible thing to do.

While I do not think we should avoid sscanf("%n"), I suspect that the code in your patch is not helped by using it that much.