From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch.autosetupmerge: allow boolean values, or "all" Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:27:34 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhcoexqeh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vhcof2rur.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vzm2620wp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46919692.5020708@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 09 04:27:50 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 1I7iyV-0001cH-PH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:27:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757998AbXGIC1g (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:27:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758027AbXGIC1g (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:27:36 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40]:48372 "EHLO fed1rmmtao106.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757106AbXGIC1f (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:27:35 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070709022735.HHZU3098.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:27:35 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id METa1X0071kojtg0000000; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:27:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46919692.5020708@gnu.org> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:59:46 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Paolo Bonzini writes: > > Having prepared the patch below, I do not think if the original >> patch even wanted to have 'all' semantics. The surrounding text >> only talks about "off a remote branch" and I strongly suspect >> that nobody wanted to do this for a local branch case at all. > > If I remember correctly, the problem was that you are not sure that > remote branches are in refs/remotes. Yes, the user can use traditional layout (e.g. refs/heads/origin is used as a remote tracking branch). So the check with refs/remotes/ is not technically correct, but it should probably look-up the configuration to check the tracking, if we really want to be strict about it. I personally do not care too much about it, though.