From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] git-branch: add --track and --no-track options Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:26:19 +0100 Message-ID: <45ED179B.90500@lu.unisi.ch> References: <7vejo2uaxs.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Reply-To: bonzini@gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paolo Bonzini , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 06 08:26:25 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HOU3y-0005FR-Ax for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:26:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932743AbXCFH0U (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 02:26:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932750AbXCFH0U (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 02:26:20 -0500 Received: from server.usilu.net ([195.176.178.200]:23290 "EHLO mail.usilu.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932743AbXCFH0U (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 02:26:20 -0500 Received: from [192.168.68.211] ([192.168.68.211] RDNS failed) by mail.usilu.net over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:26:18 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) In-Reply-To: <7vejo2uaxs.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2007 07:26:18.0896 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB974100:01C75FC0] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > 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? Paolo