Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Actually, I'm starting to wonder if the whole "upstream" thing should > not be deactivated by default, and replaced with a simpler mechanism > like "pull.default", similar to what "push.default" does today. Then, > users could set "pull.default=current", and "git pull" would pull a > branch with the same name remotely. Or users could set > "pull.default=upstream" and get what Git does today. Yes, this is pretty similar to what I had in mind, in the last paragraph of this message: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/192547/focus=192694 But it's not just about pull versus push. If you make them both work with same-name branches automatically, you still need to make "status" and "branch -vv" aware of that too, so that they can report whether you are ahead or behind your, well, "upstream". "git log @{u}" would be nice as well in this mode. So I think that "pull.default" is not the best option to use for this; maybe something like "branch.automatchupstreambyname" or some such. (It's really a separate discussion from the push.default question though, so I'm changing the subject.) -- Stefan Haller Berlin, Germany http://www.haller-berlin.de/ -- 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