lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Stefan Haller) writes: > 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 Indeed, yes. > 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. I'd call that 'upstream.default' actually. > (It's really a separate discussion from the push.default question > though, so I'm changing the subject.) Separate, but related. If Git had this behavior as default, I'd recommend 'current' without hesitation. I'm starting to be convinced that the whole 'upstream' stuff is confusing for non-expert, but it is for pull as much as it is for push. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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