From: Santi Béjar <sbejar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:15:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add branch.*.localmerge and documentation update
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:
> 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.