Re: git pull and merging.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 8, 2006, 07:07 UTC
Message-ID: <7vvekmn9vm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200612072354.01830.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

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

Show 16 quoted lines

>> But that means I would never be able to benefit from the
>> convenience of "branch.*.merge";
>
> Hmm... that's true; actually, I did not thought about people
> which do not want to have any tracking branches (again!). So
>
> [remote "repo"]
>   url = ...
>   fetch = branch1
>   fetch = branch2
>
> [branch "mybranch1"]
>   remote = repo
>   merge = branch1
>
> actually looks fine, and is the only possible way.

Yeah, when you lay it out that way, it absolutely makes sense to have "branch1" which is the name of the remote branch, not the local counterpart that tracks it, as the value of the "merge" configuration.

Show 6 quoted lines

> But still, this does not work. You have to specify
>
>   merge = refs/heads/branch1
>
> That's confusing (perhaps I can come up with a patch
> to allow "branch1" alone).

I think that might make things easier to read, but it might introduce ambiguities, especially you do not control the set of remote branches and tags.