On Monday 15 May 2006 00:19, you wrote: > > I suppose "branch.<branch name>.origin" is still the way to go for > > specifying the upstream? > > Probably "origin" is a better name for it; I was assuming > "branch.<branch name>.remote = foo" refers to a [remote "foo"] > section and means "when on this branch, pull from foo and merge > from it". Maybe. But there is a misunderstanding. I wanted the branch attribute "origin" to specify the upstream _branch_, not a remote. After a "git clone", we would have [remote "origin"] url = ... fetch = master:origin [branch "master"] origin = "origin" ; upstream of master is local branch "origin" [branch "origin"] tracksremote ; bool Now adding a further development branch for remote branch "topic", we would add [remote "origin"] ... fetch = topic:tracking-topic [branch "local-topic"] origin = "tracking-topic" [branch "tracking-topic"] tracksremote Now, a "git pull" on branch "local-topic" does the right thing: it fetches from remote "origin", as "tracking-topic" is given in a refspec there, and merges "tracking-topic" to the current branch "local-topic", as given by the origin attribute. This also extends to local upstreams: a "git checkout -b topic2 master" would append [branch "topic2"] origin = "master" and a "git pull" on topic2 would merge the upstream "master". 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