Re: git pull and merging.
- From
- Santi Béjar <sbejar@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 8, 2006, 20:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <8aa486160612081209r91a35f4v4e495357791a934c@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <200612081823.45565.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 40 quoted lines
> On Friday 08 December 2006 02:56, Santi Béjar wrote: > > > [remote "repo"] > > > url = ... > > > fetch = branch1 > > > fetch = branch2 > > > > > > [branch "mybranch1"] > > > remote = repo > > > merge = branch1 > > > > > > actually looks fine, and is the only possible way. > > > But still, this does not work. > > > > It works for me. > > > > > You have to specify > > > > > > merge = refs/heads/branch1 > > > > It does not. > > > > The merge line must match exactly the remote part of the refspec. > > Yes, you are right; I just looked it up in git-parse-remote. > Sorry about any confusion. > > > > > > > > > That's confusing (perhaps I can come up with a patch > > > to allow "branch1" alone). > > > > > > So probably the best way is to write some more detailed > > > explanation into the docu ... > > > > Perhaps that the branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge have the > > equivalent meaning as the parameters of git-pull? > > We want to fetch multiple refs from one remote in a row. So what > are you proposing? That branch.<name>.merge has to exactly > specify one remote? I do not think this is needed.
I'm not proposing anything. What I wanted to say is that we could document the ...remote and ...merge configs as the default parameters of git-pull (this is how it is implemented already).
> > Actually, I am really for a new branch.<name>.localmerge option, > and keeping branch.<name>.merge (but not advertising it).
I do not see anything wrong with the current ...remote and ...merge (see above), but I'm not against the ...localmerge config.