On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name > and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for > tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user > friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)... > > Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge) > idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code > it ;-). Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use. Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by branch.blah.merge? Nicolas - 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