From: Santi Béjar <sbejar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:09:27 GMT
Subject: Re: git pull and merging.
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:
> 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.