Hi, On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Rudolf Polzer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 07:27:41AM +0900, Nanako Shiraishi wrote: > > 'git push --track' was suggested as a way to let users delay that decision. > > > > 'git branch --configure' to update the same information for an existing > > branch was suggested as an alternative UI. An added benefit is that this > > approach will allow the same option to be used when creating a branch. > > > > 'git pull --remember' that remembers the options used from the command line > > was suggested as a solution in addition to 'git branch --reconfigure'. Users > > can postpone the decision even more than 'git push --track', and it naturally > > supports setting branch.topic.rebase with 'git pull --rebase --remember'. It > > also has two additional benefits. 'push --track' configures what happens when > > you 'pull' (counter-intuitive), but 'pull --remember' makes 'pull' to change > > the setting used by 'pull' (much more natural). Also it does not add the > > confusing word 'track' to the interface (for a more detailed discussion on > > 'track', see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/136785). Thanks for the very nice summary! > Still requires you to specify the remote and the branch name twice. > > So the workflow would be: > > git push origin localbranch:remotebranch > ... > git pull --remember origin remotebranch:localbranch > > instead of > > git push --track origin localbranch:remotebranch > ... > git pull > > The one thing I want to avoid, is specifying the "origin > localbranch:remotebranch" stuff twice. > > Doesn't make git pull --remember a bad idea, it's good in many other > cases. But in my specific use case, git push --track is the most useful > one. The thing is: done right, the three can share the major part of the code. Ciao, Dscho -- 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