Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 24, 2013, 05:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1ezYMSuQRMp_SY1HqLiuyuf0tjuf3Fn6fXF2drODZ_iw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130924053023.GA5875@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:23:21AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > Should this be "upstream remote" rather than "upstream branch"? I don't
>> > think we should be looking at branch.*.merge at all for git-fetch.
>>
>> As a general user, how do I configure the "upstream remote"?
>
> Yeah, it's not a term we use elsewhere, so it's not great. Probably
> "default remote" would be better, or even just say "branch.*.remote for
> the current branch" or something.

Yeah, general users don't know what you are talking about when you say that.

> I dunno. I don't particularly like any of those, but I really dislike
> the imprecision of "upstream branch" in this case.

For most users it's the remote configured by:

% git branch --set-upstream-to foo % git checkout -b foo origin/foo % git checkout -t -b foo bar

So when they read "upstream branch" they know from where it got configured.

-- 
Felipe Contreras