Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Hmm. I think your use of 'mytopic' is very good for the purpose
>> of illustration. It makes clear which configuration takes name
>> from what. So I like your first paragraph. However, one reason
>> people like the separate remote layout is that it allows you to
>> name your own branch identically with that of the other side, so
>> in that sense, the description in your second paragraph matches
>> the real-life usage better. What I am getting at is that (1)
>> these two paragraphs are inconsistent, (2) there is a reason to
>> prefer the description in the first paragraph, and (3) there is
>> another reason to prefer the description in the second one.
>
> Ok, I'll prefer using "mytopic" anywhere.
>
>> As Johannes already pointed this out, I think allowing this to
>> be controlled per remote is nice but overkill. A single boolean
>> configuration, say "branch.autosetupmerge", would suffice.
>
> In this case, patch 2/3 should also be withdrawn, right?
Do you mean you would agree that it is overkill? Just in case;
you do not have to necessarily agree with me but convince me
your way, if you feel I am wrong.
If so, yeah, 2/3 needs a minor adjustment since the configuration
will not be on remote.* but one configuration variable.
Also I agree with many points Dscho made. I understand you
agreed to avoid asprintf() from portability worries, which I
think is a sensible thing to do.
While I do not think we should avoid sscanf("%n"), I suspect
that the code in your patch is not helped by using it that much.
-
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