On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Qingning Huo wrote: > > Thanks for your detailed explanation. Yes, "git push" and "git pull" > both work fine out of the box. That is the good thing. But, > > $ grep git git-pull.sh > > . git-sh-setup > orig_head=$(git-rev-parse --verify HEAD) || die "Pulling into a black hole?" > git-fetch --update-head-ok "$@" || exit 1 > curr_head=$(git-rev-parse --verify HEAD) > git-read-tree -u -m "$orig_head" "$curr_head" || > var=`git repo-config --get pull.octopus` > var=`git repo-config --get pull.twohead` > merge_name=$(git-fmt-merge-msg <"$GIT_DIR/FETCH_HEAD") > git-merge $no_summary $no_commit $strategy_args "$merge_name" HEAD $merge_head > > We have "git-read-tree" and "git repo-config" at the same time. Are > there any rules saying which form should be preferred? How about pick > one form and stick to it? I agree that it is inconsistent as-is. So a patch to make it use the "git-repo-config" form (the argument being that internally, we use the full names) might be good if just for consistency. Linus - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html