On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:05:27AM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
> What if any combination of fetch and merge always gave you the long
> form? After all, even if you do have a tracking branch for whatever
> you are merging, that information is probably useless and it would be
> nicer if all of the following resulted in the long form:
>
> * git fetch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git pu
> git merge FETCH_HEAD
>
> * git remote add origin git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git
> git fetch origin
> git merge origin/pu
>
> * git fetch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git pu:tmp
> git merge tmp
Maybe it's just me, but I actually prefer the shorthand names. Five
years from now when I browse the history and see that I merged
remote branch "mike/topic", I'll know exactly what that means: developer
Mike's version of a certain topic branch. But I am not likely to care
about exactly where we were storing developer repos at that time.
But probably that is an artifact of the workflow. The scenario I am
describing above implies a somewhat centralized workflow, where the
shorthand contains all of the interesting information. In a totally
distributed, we-don't-share-anything-except-the-url-namespace setup of
an open source repo, the full URL makes more sense.
So maybe it is something that should be optional.
-Peff
>
> and so on.
>
> --
> Thomas Rast
> trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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