Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 22, 2006, 21:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <emhh4k$u4q$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612221539100.18171@xanadu.home>
<opublikowany i wysłany>
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
>> No, the message says "any REMOTE branch" -- refs/heads/next is >> what it is called at the remote, and that is how the value is >> expected to be spelled; I think somebody added an example to >> config.txt recently to stress this. The above error messasge >> obviously was not clear enough. Rewording appreciated. > > But wouldn't it be much less confusing if it used the local name for > that remote branch instead? After all it is what should be used with > git-merge if performed manually, it is what diff, log, and al must use > as well. Why would this need a remote name for something that is a > local operation after all? I think "refs/heads/master" is really > ambigous since you might be confused between the local and remote > meaning of it, whereas "origin/master" carries no confusion at all.
Perhaps less confusing, but also less powerfull. Current notation allows for pulling _without need for tracking branches_.
Although I wonder if it is possible to have multiple branch.<name>.remote, and branch.<name>.merge always refering to latest remote (octopus if there are more than one branch.<name>.merge for remote)...
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git