Could you at least keep me in CC when replying to me please? On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > <opublikowany i wysłany> ? > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > >> No, the message says "any REMOTE branch" -- refs/heads/next is > >> what it is called at the remote, and that is how the value is > >> expected to be spelled; I think somebody added an example to > >> config.txt recently to stress this. The above error messasge > >> obviously was not clear enough. Rewording appreciated. > > > > But wouldn't it be much less confusing if it used the local name for > > that remote branch instead? After all it is what should be used with > > git-merge if performed manually, it is what diff, log, and al must use > > as well. Why would this need a remote name for something that is a > > local operation after all? I think "refs/heads/master" is really > > ambigous since you might be confused between the local and remote > > meaning of it, whereas "origin/master" carries no confusion at all. > > Perhaps less confusing, but also less powerfull. Current notation > allows for pulling _without need for tracking branches_. Is this really a killer feature worth the confusion? If you put the repo to pull from on the command line then sure you might not want a tracking branch, but if you go to the trouble of adding a branch.blah.merge config entry then you certainly don't mind having a tracking branch? Nicolas