On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In order to make this more understandable to the user, we rename the > > push.default == 'tracking' option to push.default == 'upstream'. > > While we're there, shouldn't we also rename 'branch.<remote>.merge' to > 'branch.<remote>.upstream'? I have a draft proposal not exactly to rename it, but to replace it by a new branch.<name>.upstream which would point to local ref rather than a ref on the remote, so one would have e.g. branch.topic.upstream = refs/remotes/origin/master. Maybe I should clean up that proposal and send it soon. The topic comes up quite frequently. My biggest concern with it is that it breaks the use case where the remote is not named, i.e. where one has a configuration that looks like: [branch "topic"] remote = git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git merge = master I don't know how common that case is, so I don't know if it would it be acceptable to break it. I would of course not suggest no longer fall back to reading branch.<name>.(remote+merge), but at some point we would drop support for that and then we would disallow that use case. I'm also not sure the benefits are that great; this is just one of those things I think "we should do differently if designing git from scratch". What do you think? Should I even bother sending a formal proposal? /Martin -- 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