From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Rebase to parent branch after git-fetch in "stg pull". Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:38:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20070204023818.GA27644@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20070201234805.3313.20525.stgit@gandelf.nowhere.earth> <20070202180706.GE5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <20070202224250.GF5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <20070203214619.GM5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <7v8xfe3kwo.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070204014945.GA18357@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vzm7uy8ng.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Yann Dirson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 04 03:38:28 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 1HDXGr-0002hV-IG for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 03:38:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751953AbXBDCiV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:38:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751959AbXBDCiV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:38:21 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2042 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751953AbXBDCiU (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:38:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 25339 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2007 21:38:19 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 3 Feb 2007 21:38:19 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 03 Feb 2007 21:38:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzm7uy8ng.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 06:10:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not think it is wrong to have a separate mechanism (and it > might end up being called as "mergelocal" which you said might > be a terrible name) for that. I just think it is probably a > wrong thing to do to use branch.*.merge for that. As you said, > operations you are interested in like format-patch (and perhaps > rebase) of a local branch relative to another locally available > ref (be it another branch or a tracking branch) do not involve > fetching (hence pulling) necessarily. Good, it looks like we are mostly agreeing on this then (the feature might have some use, but it should _not_ be tacked onto branch.*.merge). I will give it some thought until v1.5.0 has settled, and then hopefully submit some patches. -Peff