Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@xxxxxx> writes: > On Friday 08 December 2006 22:38, 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. >> >> 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? > > I just came up with a concrete patch. > I am not saying that this is the only true solution. I admit that I do not use branch.*.merge and I do not know what people find lacking in what Santi did in late September with commit 5372806. What problem are we trying to solve (not a rhetorical question -- I am truly lost here)? Is it only a confusion between remote and local, or is there something that cannot be expressed with the current scheme? > Actually, Jakubs one with allowing arbitrary refspecs is nice. > The only problem is that it is not consistent which refspec > shortcuts otherwise, or? Actually I had a quite opposite reaction about allowing src:dst notation there. Does it solve any real problem? It is unclear to me. On the other hand, it gives a false impression that it can be used instead of remote.*.fetch to copy the remote branch into local tracking branch, and raises other questions such as what should happen when you have both, i.e. src:dst is given to both remote.*.fetch and branch.*.merge, and they do not agree. Which means it only adds to the confusion. So I do not think it is worth spending brain cycles talking about that particular one; it does not even have a patch to implement it. But you have a concrete patch, and if it is fixing a real problem, then that is worth talking about. I just do not know if a problem exists, other than that people can get confused and write local tracking branch name by mistake when it should be remote branch name. - 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