From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: branch..merge specifying remote branch name Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:32:39 +0100 Message-ID: <200612231532.39363.jnareb@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Dec 23 15:30:02 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Gy7sv-0002Fm-Id for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:30:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753557AbWLWO36 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:29:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753552AbWLWO36 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:29:58 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:18034 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753151AbWLWO35 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:29:57 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 44so3196948uga for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:29:56 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=GY5kbCvg9Qc7/CsBu7wRD2SqfUsJfVKC+zdL70VMBjioLC7VsbAui5UHAI6IbAhzzDnjBrChJuxD/2CAgP3phndYZrpudmBpNbXFqUjQ+wyNOiYNXB89bO2jlIsb4A9YWGJzqjrAXAn2LGl0ewOac7pDSOZFtYFSsl2wgU5uq+E= Received: by 10.66.219.11 with SMTP id r11mr15259819ugg.1166884195702; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from host-81-190-25-107.torun.mm.pl ( [81.190.25.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 72sm14504506ugb.2006.12.23.06.29.55; Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:29:55 -0800 (PST) To: Nicolas Pitre User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > >> About the discussion about branch..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..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