Re: [PATCH] merge: default to @{upstream}
- From
Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 28, 2011, 21:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.10.1101281633580.11103@debian>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTimc92giAAJnzjv5Bq4f853xqEfLrgB=j+iRXPaf@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Bert Wesarg wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 17:17, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So 'git merge' is 'git merge @{upstream}' instead of 'git merge -h';
> > it's better to do something useful.
>
> Nice idea. Could you have a look into git rebase, I think this could
> be applied there too.I submitted an RFC patch for that a while ago [1]. I will soon send a re-roll of some rebase refactoring patches I have been working on (I have been busy at work and also waiting for 1.7.4 to be finished). I will then send an updated "default upstream" patch again on top of the refactoring patches.
And thanks for taking care of the merge case, Felipe. I'm still struggling with the part of Git written in C, so I'm glad you took that part.
> > Anyway, I think some high level sanity check won't harm. Ie. check if > there is an upstream configured.
Will be done in the case of rebase at least (stolen from the implementation in git pull).
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/161382/