Re: Tracking of local branches

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
> > I semi-successfully messed around in remote.c (format_tracking_info(),
> > stat_tracking_info()) to make it use branch->merge_name rather than
> > branch->merge. This makes "git status" work as expected ("Your branch
> > is... severely screwed.") for tracked local branches. (It's messed up
> > for remote ones but hey it was a first shot; merge[0]->dst is really
> > needed here I guess.)
> >
> > Now I could go after sha1_name.c and do the same,
> >
> > OR
> >
> > make it so that all branches have their merge member set up, uhm. Any
> > possible side effects?
> 
> My gut feeling is that the latter if works should be preferable for
> consistency if nothing else.
> 
> The "struct branch" hasn't changed ever since it was introduced by cf81834
> (Report information on branches from remote.h, 2007-09-10) and Daniel
> might know about some corner cases that rely on branch.merge not being set
> up for local ones, but honestly, I would think it would be a bug in the
> existing code if there were such cases.