Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I was one of the major pushers of this feature in December; however, I > think it actually can create some confusing results. See: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/35789 I actually was re-reading that exact post (and more importantly, messages 35810 and 36374 in the thread) before I sent the message you are replying to. While I think branch.*.merge, which was invented for the use of git-pull -> git-merge callchain, should consistently use the remote branch name, after re-reading your messages, especially 36374, I see why you wanted a mechanism to talk about relationships between two (or more) local branches. I do not think it is wrong to have a separate mechanism (and it might end up being called as "mergelocal" which you said might be a terrible name) for that. I just think it is probably a wrong thing to do to use branch.*.merge for that. As you said, operations you are interested in like format-patch (and perhaps rebase) of a local branch relative to another locally available ref (be it another branch or a tracking branch) do not involve fetching (hence pulling) necessarily. - 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