Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Dec 22, 2006, 21:20 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612221609430.18171@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <emhh4k$u4q$1@sea.gmane.org>

Could you at least keep me in CC when replying to me please?

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> <opublikowany i wysłany>

Show 19 quoted lines

> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> >> No, the message says "any REMOTE branch" -- refs/heads/next is
> >> what it is called at the remote, and that is how the value is
> >> expected to be spelled; I think somebody added an example to
> >> config.txt recently to stress this.  The above error messasge
> >> obviously was not clear enough.  Rewording appreciated.
> > 
> > But wouldn't it be much less confusing if it used the local name for 
> > that remote branch instead?  After all it is what should be used with 
> > git-merge if performed manually, it is what diff, log, and al must use 
> > as well.  Why would this need a remote name for something that is a 
> > local operation after all?  I think "refs/heads/master" is really 
> > ambigous since you might be confused between the local and remote 
> > meaning of it, whereas "origin/master" carries no confusion at all.
> 
> Perhaps less confusing, but also less powerfull. Current notation
> allows for pulling _without need for tracking branches_.

Is this really a killer feature worth the confusion?

If you put the repo to pull from on the command line then sure you might not want a tracking branch, but if you go to the trouble of adding a branch.blah.merge config entry then you certainly don't mind having a tracking branch?

Nicolas