Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> * git-fetch requires that the branch be named on both sides of >> the :. It should treat 'foo' as an alias for 'foo:foo'. > > So 'foo' is treated as 'foo:' (which means fetch, and not store), and > not as 'foo:foo'. It is perhaps a bit strange, but backward > compatibility would I think prohibit us to change it, even if it would > make more sense to have it be shortcut for 'foo:foo' instead. It is not strange nor b/c requirement at all. If anything, it could default to "foo:remotes/$remote/foo", not "foo:foo", but even then, it shouldn't. You are missing a bigger picture. I think the list predates the introduction of separate remotes, which has been the default for more than a year. You would have "fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*" these days in the configuration by default. What this means is that you would have much less reason to run "fetch $there foo" to begin with. The only time you would fetch in that way is when you want an unconfigured, single-shot fetch, in which case you do _NOT_ want tracking. So there is no valid reason to default "foo" to "foo:<anything>", unless that <anything> is empty. Not to foo:foo, not to foo:remotes/$remote/foo. Many of the remaining parts of the complaint list share the misunderstanding coming from the lack of understanding of separate remotes layout. -- 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
