On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:05:24AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > There are two advantages I see to putting local branches in branch.*.merge: Let me add a third: There are some operations which care about who our upstream is, but didn't necessarily just do a fetch (so FETCH_HEAD is not an option). For example, I have a short porcelain-ish script that formats all of my changes as patches and shows them as a mutt mailbox. If you don't specify an upstream, it uses 'origin'. However, this isn't right if I'm on 'next'. What I _really_ want is to say "a sensible upstream branch for the branch I'm currently on" which is basically what "mergeLocal" would be. Come to think of it, mergeLocal is a terrible name, since it should really would be for merging, rebasing, and anything else which wanted to say "where did I probably come from?" So perhaps "upstream" would make more sense? -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