Sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:12:32 +0100 > Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I would rather see the default pull source of a branch being > > determined by which branch it was branched off of. But this should > > mean the same thing in this case. We'd just have to have the heuristic > > that default pulls from a remotes/*/* branch causes a fetch, while a > > default pull from a local branch does not. > > Well, when you create a branch a branch.<branch>.merge entry could be > automatically made so that a merge from the proper place happens. Yes, definately. For most people I know that use Git the branch they branched off of is the one they need to pull in on a regular basis to keep their topic branch current. They rarely pull other branches in. > But in the absence of any config merge entries, it would be nice to > default to the same branch name from the remote namespace. This > removes the need to create merge entries for the initial clone. > Of course, currently you have to create branch.<branch>.merge > entries by hand. Nack. I'd rather see the entries added/removed from .git/config when the branch is created/deleted, just like the ref and the reflog are created/deleted. It makes behavior more consistent for the user and it is mostly self documenting... "why is branch FOO pulling FOO by default? ahhh, its in .git/config after git branch FOO FOO." Same goes for git-clone. The branch.master.merge=origin/master entry should be in .git/config file after the clone is complete. -- Shawn. - 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