Re: git bug? + question

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Nov 3, 2006, 09:25 UTC
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP0642BEDA27FC7EADD1A9AAAEFE0@CEZ.ICE>
In-Reply-To: <20061103081232.GB15972@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:12:32 +0100 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I would rather see the default pull source of a branch being
> determined by which branch it was branched off of. But this should
> mean the same thing in this case. We'd just have to have the heuristic
> that default pulls from a remotes/*/* branch causes a fetch, while a
> default pull from a local branch does not.

Well, when you create a branch a branch.<branch>.merge entry could be automatically made so that a merge from the proper place happens. But in the absence of any config merge entries, it would be nice to default to the same branch name from the remote namespace. This removes the need to create merge entries for the initial clone. Of course, currently you have to create branch.<branch>.merge entries by hand.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > On a peripherally related topic, someone on the xorg list was
> > complaining that after the initial clone, there is no easy way to
> > track branches that get added/deleted from the remote repo. It would
> > be nice if pull had an option to automatically add and remove remote
> > branches from the remotes/<remote>/xxx namespace.
> 
> That would definitely be useful. But I want it in fetch, not pull. :-)
> Well, I suppose it could be in both.

Yes.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Hmm, I think my dislike of remote pulls can be summed up as: I find it
> convoluted to have a command that will fetch multiple remote branches,
> then merge just one of them into my current branch. (I have no problem
> with pull when the branches to pull are specified explicitly, since in
> that case they are all merged.) With explicitly specified default pull
> sources it would get better, since then I would know that the correct
> branch would be merged, but I still don't quite like it.

Yeah.. Although fetching multiple remotes makes more sense as an optimization, especially when using a separate remotes namespace. Perhaps the real confusion is created because the only porcelain level merge command current in Git is "git pull .". A separate name might make things easier to grasp.

Sean