threads / discuss / 6091

branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name

Subject: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name

## tl;dr

3 messages between Dec 23, 2006 and Dec 23, 2006.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Jakub Narebski· Dec 23, 2006, 09:14 UTC · lore

About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...

Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge) idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code it ;-).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Nicolas Pitre· Dec 23, 2006, 14:26 UTC · re: Jakub Narebski · lore

Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
> 
> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
> it ;-).

Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.

Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by branch.blah.merge?

Nicolas

Jakub Narebski· Dec 23, 2006, 14:32 UTC · re: Nicolas Pitre · lore

Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name

Nicolas Pitre wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> 
>> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
>> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
>> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
>> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
>> 
>> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
>> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
>> it ;-).
> 
> Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.
> 
> Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by 
> branch.blah.merge?

Junio just implemented that. Although it is a bit of magic (which can bite when you have remote which is not '.', and which has branches with the same names like some of your local branches, and vice versa). mergeLocal would be unambiguous...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland