From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 23:11:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] config/branch: state that <name>.merge is the remote ref
Message-ID: <xmqq8sphodi6.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <c96f4dbd-ebc6-b743-716e-e1e17333c06b@iee.email>

Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes:

> branch.<name>.merge::
>     Defines, for the local branch <name>, the upstream branch ref
>     _on the remote_ (as given by branch.<name>.remote).
>     The upstream ref may be different from the local branch ref.
>
> optionally s/different from/ same as/ ?

That "optionally" part is exactly why I said "upstream and remote
tracking names may or may not differ is irrelevant information".

>>      The name of the branch at the remote `branch.<name>.remote` that
>>      is used as the upstream branch for the given branch.  It tells
>>      `git fetch`, etc., which branch to merge and ...
>>
> If this, should we also say it (the key value) is that of the upstream
> branch _ref_?

Yeah, that makes it clear that readers should not write "master" and
use "refs/heads/master" instead.  It may even be more (technically)
correct to say just "ref" without branch (this ref does not have to
be a branch at the remote repository at all).  I am not sure if we
want to go that far to make it more correct and also make it hint
that using a non-branch ref is a valid configuration to readers, but
I agree it is a good idea to avoid saying "name" (which implies
that "master" is OK, which is not).

Thanks.