From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Weidendorfer Subject: Re: Default remote branch for local branch Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:38:29 +0200 Message-ID: <200604031138.29227.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> References: <1143856098.3555.48.camel@dv> <200604030128.42680.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> <4430D517.5020205@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 03 11:38:46 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQLWC-0004Cj-VN for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:38:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751705AbWDCJid (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 05:38:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751707AbWDCJid (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 05:38:33 -0400 Received: from mailout1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.0.18]:51911 "EHLO mailout1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751705AbWDCJic (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 05:38:32 -0400 Received: from dhcp-3s-61.lrr.in.tum.de (dhcp-3s-61.lrr.in.tum.de [131.159.35.61]) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE9322FA; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:38:30 +0200 (MEST) To: Andreas Ericsson User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 In-Reply-To: <4430D517.5020205@op5.se> Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new/sophie/sophos at mailrelay1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Monday 03 April 2006 09:56, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > > > Optionally, branching off from could add as > > topic branch of : Thus, if you are on and do git-pull, > > you get merged in. > > > > This is clearly insane. If I'm on and want to sync with my > upstream source that would be impossible without explicitly telling it > *not* to merge with . Iow, this change would (possibly) simplify > for the one repo maintainer, but make things harder for the 30-odd > developers. Yes. Therefore I put "optionally" above. But you are right, mixing up "merge upstream" and "merge downstream" into one config option is insane. Some idea independent but related: I still think it is a better UI of a porcelain to try to note metainfo automatically, ie. storing somewhere that we branched one off another. What about adding "branch.topic" config option for this? "git-branch -t newtopic"/"git-checkout -b newtopic -t" would create a new topic branch, which is remembered in "branch.topic", and "git-pull -t" merges these topic branches? To specify that a remote branch is a topic branch of a given local branch (to be pulled into with "git-pull -t"), we could add "git-branch --add-topic |". Josef