From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:48:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add branch.*.localmerge and documentation update
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:

> "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.
[...]
>>
>> 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