From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:28:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only warn about missing branch.<n>.merge in pull.
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0612191127540.19693@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7v7iwovg99.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Monday 18 December 2006 21:43, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >> 
> >> However, I would actually reuse our versatile (often hated?) config  
> >> handling:
> >> 
> >> [branch "xyz"]
> >> 	remote = blabla # this is the default remote
> >> 	merge = master # this is the default branch for the default remote
> >> 	merge = pu for remote second # merge 'pu' if pulling from second
> >
> > Looks a little bit confusing, but is fine with me.
> > I even would remove the need for the word "remote" in the second merge line.
> > Anybody using this has to look it up in the documentation, anyway.
> > Because these options are not really self-describing.
> 
> I actually am in favor of Johannes's one, except that it does
> look like you are always making a pentapus merge of pu, for,
> remote and second branches into xyz ;-).


Would

	merge = pu, when pulling second

be better? ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho