* branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
@ 2006-12-23 9:14 Jakub Narebski
2006-12-23 14:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2006-12-23 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
it ;-).
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
2006-12-23 9:14 branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name Jakub Narebski
@ 2006-12-23 14:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-23 14:32 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2006-12-23 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
>
> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
> it ;-).
Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.
Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by
branch.blah.merge?
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
2006-12-23 14:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
@ 2006-12-23 14:32 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2006-12-23 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: git
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>
>> About the discussion about branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name
>> and relative merits of specifying remote branch name (without need for
>> tracking branch), and local branch name (which is supposedly more user
>> friendly, and branch name specifies also remote usually)...
>>
>> Perhaps it is time to resurrect branch.<name>.mergeLocal (or localMerge)
>> idea, and both sides would be happy (well, at least when one would code
>> it ;-).
>
> Adding more and more options doesn't make it friendlier to use.
>
> Why couldn't both names (local and remote) be accepted by
> branch.blah.merge?
Junio just implemented that. Although it is a bit of magic (which can bite
when you have remote which is not '.', and which has branches with the same
names like some of your local branches, and vice versa). mergeLocal would
be unambiguous...
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-23 14:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-12-23 9:14 branch.<name>.merge specifying remote branch name Jakub Narebski
2006-12-23 14:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-12-23 14:32 ` Jakub Narebski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).