From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:36:08 -0800 Message-ID: <7vy7omyuaf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <405044.6078.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "J. Bruce Fields" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 02 04:36:19 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 1H1aRi-0000at-D0 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:36:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755230AbXABDgL (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:36:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755243AbXABDgL (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:36:11 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:41752 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755230AbXABDgK (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:36:10 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070102033610.LZWM97.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:36:10 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 63bN1W00G1kojtg0000000; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:35:23 -0500 To: ltuikov@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <405044.6078.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (Luben Tuikov's message of "Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:05:11 -0800 (PST)") 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: Luben Tuikov writes: > Questions: > > What is the reasonining of defining branch..merge to point > to the "remote's setup"? See list archives. Because you are not required to use remote tracking branches. By the way, I think we allow the name of the remote tracking branch as well, but we do not advertise it -- always using remote's name consistently is much less confusing. > The reasoning is that the remote's setup should only leak into > [remote] and no further. I.e. [remote] is the only one concerned > with the mapping between the remote repo and the local repo. No. Remote is not about mapping -- if mapping is there you can talk about it, but that is optional.