<opublikowany i wysłany> Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Santi Béjar" <sbejar@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> Clarify the meaning of branch.*.merge option and add a similar >>> branch.*.localmerge option, which can be used to specify a local >>> tracking branch to be merged by default. >>> >>> Previously, if branch.*.merge was specified but did not match any >>> ref, the message "No changes." was not really helpful regarding >>> the misconfiguration. This now gives a warning. [...] >> >> Ack for the documentation part. But the localmerge part is almost >> equivalent to my patch to allow the branch.<name>.remote equal to ".". > > I am not so sure about the "localmerge" stuff anymore. > > What convenience would it buy us (including but not limited to > new people), and if there is any, would that outweigh the > potential confusion factor to have two different configuration > variables that do exactly the same thing whose sole difference > is which side of the fetched branch namespace it uses to specify > the merge source? What about my proposal to allow for full refspec, or :<localbranch> to be specified? I.e. allow all the following forms: branch.<name>.merge = refs/heads/<remotebranch> branch.<name>.merge = refs/heads/<remotebranch>:refs/remotes/<remote>/<localbranch> branch.<name>.merge = :refs/remotes/<remote>/<localbranch> By the way, if branch.*.remote is equal to ".", remote branch is local branch. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - 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