Re: [PATCH] Explicitly add the default "git pull" behaviour to .git/config on clone
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Dec 7, 2006, 14:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0612071511440.28348@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <200612070349.58521.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Thursday 07 December 2006 00:23, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 06 December 2006 13:07, Andy Parkins wrote: > > > > The [branch "master"] section is such that there is no change to the > > > > functionality of git-pull, but that functionality is now explicitly > > > > documented. > > > > > > Nice. However, changing "git-clone" for this is an adhoc solution and > > > looks wrong. > > > > Not to me. There is _no_ other place to put this, if you want to help > > people graps the concept of branch.*.merge. > > As far as I understand, git-clone defaults to kind of a mirror operation > while changing remotes ref names slightly as tracking branches, and > afterwards, it sets up a local branch for development, which is > branched off from the branch which tracks remote's master.
Yes. And I should back off from my strong language: I think this git-clone the most obvious program to set branch.master.merge. It should make life easier for new Git users.
Ciao,