From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:10:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Rebase to parent branch after git-fetch in "stg pull".
Message-ID: <7vzm7uy8ng.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070204014945.GA18357@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I was one of the major pushers of this feature in December; however, I
> think it actually can create some confusing results. See:
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/35789

I actually was re-reading that exact post (and more importantly,
messages 35810 and 36374 in the thread) before I sent the
message you are replying to.

While I think branch.*.merge, which was invented for the use of
git-pull -> git-merge callchain, should consistently use the
remote branch name, after re-reading your messages, especially
36374, I see why you wanted a mechanism to talk about
relationships between two (or more) local branches.

I do not think it is wrong to have a separate mechanism (and it
might end up being called as "mergelocal" which you said might
be a terrible name) for that.  I just think it is probably a
wrong thing to do to use branch.*.merge for that. As you said,
operations you are interested in like format-patch (and perhaps
rebase) of a local branch relative to another locally available
ref (be it another branch or a tracking branch) do not involve
fetching (hence pulling) necessarily.