Re: [PATCH] Add branch.*.localmerge and documentation update
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 8, 2006, 21:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <elcmen$pm6$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vr6vagja6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
<opublikowany i wysłany>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> "Santi Béjar" <sbejar@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Clarify the meaning of branch.*.merge option and add a similar >>> branch.*.localmerge option, which can be used to specify a local >>> tracking branch to be merged by default. >>> >>> Previously, if branch.*.merge was specified but did not match any >>> ref, the message "No changes." was not really helpful regarding >>> the misconfiguration. This now gives a warning.
[...]
Show 12 quoted lines
>> >> Ack for the documentation part. But the localmerge part is almost >> equivalent to my patch to allow the branch.<name>.remote equal to ".". > > I am not so sure about the "localmerge" stuff anymore. > > What convenience would it buy us (including but not limited to > new people), and if there is any, would that outweigh the > potential confusion factor to have two different configuration > variables that do exactly the same thing whose sole difference > is which side of the fetched branch namespace it uses to specify > the merge source?
What about my proposal to allow for full refspec, or :<localbranch> to be specified? I.e. allow all the following forms: branch.<name>.merge = refs/heads/<remotebranch> branch.<name>.merge = refs/heads/<remotebranch>:refs/remotes/<remote>/<localbranch> branch.<name>.merge = :refs/remotes/<remote>/<localbranch>
By the way, if branch.*.remote is equal to ".", remote branch is local branch.
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git