Re: [Bug] branch.*.merge interpreted too strictly by tracking logic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:05:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > I don't recall us ever doing anything after that. I don't have a problem
> > with making it work, of course, but I am not sure if it is really a bug.
> 
> Once people get used to us being extra nice in some places, other
> less nice places start looking more and more like bugs. It is an
> unfortunate fact of life, but fixing them up is a good thing for
> users.  As long as we can make those less nice places nicer
> uniformly without bending backwards or introducing unnecessary
> ambiguities, that is, and I think this one can be done without
> such downsides.

Oh, absolutely, and I do not think we are breaking anything to start
handling it better (my "I don't have a problem..." above). But I guess I
am doubting that people are actually doing this at all now. I'd expect
most people to have the config set automatically by "branch" or
"checkout", or to use "branch --set-upstream-to". Did your report come
out of a real case, or was it just something you noticed?

-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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]