From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:37:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only warn about missing branch.<n>.merge in pull.
Message-ID: <7vy7p4qiib.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0612191127540.19693@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

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

>> >> 	merge = pu for remote second # merge 'pu' if pulling from second
>>
>> I actually am in favor of Johannes's one, except that it does
>> look like you are always making a pentapus merge of pu, for,
>> remote and second branches into xyz ;-).
>
>
> Would
>
> 	merge = pu, when pulling second
>
> be better? ;-)

The users can work it around by writing:

	merge pu remote second for

Just document it clearly and say "if you are going to make an
pentapus (or more) with remote branches that include ones named
'for' and 'remote', do not place them as third and second
(respectively) word from the end on the line" ;-).

Your "noise word" remote is actually useful.