Re: [PATCH] branch: let inherit track a remote-tracking start point

[Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>]

> Le 17 oct. 2026 à 05:55, Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 6:55 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Looking at the originating commit d3115660b4 (branch: add flags and
>> config to inherit tracking, 2021-12-20), it only talks about what
>> they want to do when the starting point does track something, and
>> forgets to say what they want when it does not track anything (the
>> author CC'ed in case he retains the memory of the motivation from 5
>> years ago), but if you ask me _now_, not doing anything, i.e., the
>> behaviour the old commit happened to have implemented without
>> explanation does sound like the right thing to do.
>> What we should do if this change of behaviour turns out to be
>> undesirable?
>> Perhaps `inherit` should gain a synonym `inherit-or-ignore` for
>> those who prefer the current behaviour, and we want two extra
>> behaviours, `inherit-or-fail` that complains and dies if the
>> specified starting point does not have anything for the new branch
>> to inherit, and `inherit-or-direct` that uses the fallback
>> definition, or something?
> 
> Seems quite overkill for the relatively small problem this is solving.
> But it would be interesting to hear the original author's POV.

Overkill, possibly, but easier to expand in a compatible way over time
(other than piling new modifier --options on top, which makes the CLI confusing IMO).