From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:26:11 GMT
Subject: Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612230924110.18171@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <emirt5$kh3$2@sea.gmane.org>

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
> 
> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
> it ;-).

Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.

Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by 
branch.blah.merge?


Nicolas