Re: [PATCH] Add branch.*.localmerge and documentation update
- From
- Santi Béjar <sbejar@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 8, 2006, 22:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <8aa486160612081415h30a35c09lc273fd34f1dbceed@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <200612082239.38423.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> On Friday 08 December 2006 21:52, Santi Béjar wrote: > > On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Clarify the meaning of branch.*.merge option and add a similar > > > branch.*.localmerge option, which can be used to specify a local > > > tracking branch to be merged by default. > > > > > > Previously, if branch.*.merge was specified but did not match any > > > ref, the message "No changes." was not really helpful regarding > > > the misconfiguration. This now gives a warning. > > > > > > The value of branch.*.merge can be a list to get an octopus > > > merge. I chose the same way for branch.*.localmerge, and if > > > you specify both options, the octopus merge will have even > > > more parents ;-) > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> > > > > Ack for the documentation part. But the localmerge part is almost > > equivalent to my patch to allow the branch.<name>.remote equal to ".". > > Interesting. I did not have a look at your patch. > The support for the "branch.*.localmerge" option is one step to be > able to support a remote ".". So of course, it probably is similar. > I even would say that "." as remote now actually makes sense as > logical extension. > > However, what would you change in the implementation part of my patch?
I would only take the documentation part (without the localmerge part) and the test for the warning.