On Monday 03 April 2006 09:56, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > > > Optionally, branching <new> off from <old> could add <new> as > > topic branch of <old>: Thus, if you are on <old> and do git-pull, > > you get <new> merged in. > > > > This is clearly insane. If I'm on <old> and want to sync with my > upstream source that would be impossible without explicitly telling it > *not* to merge with <new>. Iow, this change would (possibly) simplify > for the one repo maintainer, but make things harder for the 30-odd > developers. Yes. Therefore I put "optionally" above. But you are right, mixing up "merge upstream" and "merge downstream" into one config option is insane. Some idea independent but related: I still think it is a better UI of a porcelain to try to note metainfo automatically, ie. storing somewhere that we branched one off another. What about adding "branch.topic" config option for this? "git-branch -t newtopic"/"git-checkout -b newtopic -t" would create a new topic branch, which is remembered in "branch.topic", and "git-pull -t" merges these topic branches? To specify that a remote branch is a topic branch of a given local branch (to be pulled into with "git-pull -t"), we could add "git-branch --add-topic <refspec>|<remoteURL>". Josef - : 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