From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santi_B=E9jar?=" Subject: Re: git pull and merging. Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 21:09:27 +0100 Message-ID: <8aa486160612081209r91a35f4v4e495357791a934c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200612072354.01830.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> <8aa486160612071756s18f9530cr7ed26e4b7b47d1de@mail.gmail.com> <200612081823.45565.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Junio C Hamano" , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , "Johannes Schindelin" , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=QMaofwYtPCzjmAwv9v1rfo9b+vaFwKyVRLBTCxyUExb5QJ4tx8tyQEQaIl9780h7SjefGU4nTCSeTwqL60iFcXCiocuJxMR5Oxux/JtzaZx4bloDeP88wyYlUvyrtBENmxbkCaavst7bVTqDc8fW0r9T3OZ088VeFTk2LAycNp4= In-Reply-To: <200612081823.45565.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Gsm2I-0006BY-Du for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:09:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946146AbWLHUJa convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:09:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946262AbWLHUJa (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:09:30 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.238]:40422 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946223AbWLHUJ2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:09:28 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h27so904861wxd for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.50.18 with SMTP id x18mr6528298wxx.1165608567658; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.45.1 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:09:27 -0800 (PST) To: "Josef Weidendorfer" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > On Friday 08 December 2006 02:56, Santi B=E9jar wrote: > > > [remote "repo"] > > > url =3D ... > > > fetch =3D branch1 > > > fetch =3D branch2 > > > > > > [branch "mybranch1"] > > > remote =3D repo > > > merge =3D branch1 > > > > > > actually looks fine, and is the only possible way. > > > But still, this does not work. > > > > It works for me. > > > > > You have to specify > > > > > > merge =3D refs/heads/branch1 > > > > It does not. > > > > The merge line must match exactly the remote part of the refspec. > > Yes, you are right; I just looked it up in git-parse-remote. > Sorry about any confusion. > > > > > > > > > That's confusing (perhaps I can come up with a patch > > > to allow "branch1" alone). > > > > > > So probably the best way is to write some more detailed > > > explanation into the docu ... > > > > Perhaps that the branch..remote and branch..merge have = the > > equivalent meaning as the parameters of git-pull? > > We want to fetch multiple refs from one remote in a row. So what > are you proposing? That branch..merge has to exactly > specify one remote? I do not think this is needed. I'm not proposing anything. What I wanted to say is that we could document the ...remote and ...merge configs as the default parameters of git-pull (this is how it is implemented already). > > Actually, I am really for a new branch..localmerge option, > and keeping branch..merge (but not advertising it). I do not see anything wrong with the current ...remote and ...merge (see above), but I'm not against the ...localmerge config.