Hi, On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Julian Phillips wrote: > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Andy Parkins wrote: > > > On Wednesday 2007 February 28 14:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > As can be seen from my other messages, I'm experimenting a little with > > > git and trying to understand how its workflow compares with arch. Right > > > now, my procedure for branching off a remote archive is: > > > > > > git checkout -b branchname remote/upstreambranch > > > git config --add branch.branchname.remote remote > > > git config --add branch.branchname.merge refs/heads/upstreambranch > > > > > > Is there a reason why "git branch" and "git checkout -b" should not > > > automatically do the two "git-config --add"s when the source branch is > > > remote? > > > > I can see why that would be handy, but I often make short lived > > branches off a remote; and I wouldn't want my config cluttered up with > > branch defintions. > > How about adding an option to tell checkout/branch that a tracking > branch is wanted (-t perhaps) - or perhaps a way to say that you don't > want to track the remote (depending on which is more popular)? I don't think that you should be forced to do it explicitely. If you want to merge in another branch, you can do that _explicitely_. So, defaulting to what most people want anyway is A Good Thing. Just my 2 cents, Dscho - 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