On 2021.11.19 07:47, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16 2021, Josh Steadmon wrote:
>
> > I've addressed Glen's feedback from V3. However, this brings up a new
> > issue that was not obvious before: "branch.<name>.merge" can be
> > specified more than once. On the other hand, the existing tracking setup
> > code supports only a single merge entry. For now I'm defaulting to use
> > the first merge entry listed in the branch struct, but I'm curious what
> > people think the best solution would be. This may be another point in
> > favor of Ævar's suggestion to reuse the copy-branch-config machinery.
>
> I haven't looked in any detail now at the "should we copy the config?"
> questions. Just some quick comments/nits below:
Thanks for the comments. They're all fixed in V5, which I'll be sending
out soon.
[snip]
> > @@ -632,8 +632,10 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > OPT__VERBOSE(&filter.verbose,
> > N_("show hash and subject, give twice for upstream branch")),
> > OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("suppress informational messages")),
> > - OPT_SET_INT('t', "track", &track, N_("set up tracking mode (see git-pull(1))"),
> > - BRANCH_TRACK_EXPLICIT),
> > + OPT_CALLBACK_F('t', "track", &track, "direct|inherit",
> > + N_("set up tracking mode (see git-pull(1))"),
>
> Hrm, should we say "git help pull" here, on just not reference it at all
> and have a linkgit:git-pull[1]?
>
> Or maybe git-branch.txt and git-pull.txt should be including a template?
> As we do with Documentation/rev-list-options.txt, then this
> cross-reference wouldn't be needed.
Yeah, there's nothing really helpful in git-pull(1) about "--track"
that's easily searchable (i.e. without reading it all straight through),
so I just removed the pointer in the option help string, add added
linkgit:git-pull(1) and linkgit:git-config(1) to git-branch.txt.
I briefly looked at writing a common template for both git-branch.txt
and git-pull.txt but I feel like the git-pull discussion of tracking is
so spread out in that doc that it would require a significant rewrite to
make a common template work.
