On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:15:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Only *if* you store it in that tracking branch. The name the > other party gives _do_ matter to you anyway, because you have to > _know_ it to fetch. What it does NOT matter is if you use a > tracking branch, or if you do, which local tracking branch you > use to track it. No, their names _don't_ matter to most users. With the new remote layout and wildcards, I'll never even see 'refs/heads/next' when I clone git.git; I'll only talk about 'origin/next'. The local tracking branch matters much more to me, because it's the thing I'll use to interact with git. I don't say 'git-checkout -b topic origin refs/heads/master'; I say 'git-checkout -b topic origin/next'. Yes, my proposed syntax means you have to have a tracking branch. But does it really make sense for people to put entries in their config file, but not have a tracking branch? What do people use non-tracking branch pulls for, anyway? I would assume for one-off pulls of infrequently used repositories, in which case they're always saying "git-pull git://path/to/repo foo:bar". My point being that if we can improve the usefulness of the config file, it's probably not worth worrying about people combining branch.*.merge config entries with non-tracking-branch pulls, since they're extremely unlikely to be used together. Does anyone out there use non-tracking-branch pulls? If so, can you describe your use case? -Peff - 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