From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: optionally setup branch.*.merge from upstream local branches Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <1203386832-43969-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com> <20080219074423.GA3982@steel.home> <76718490802190549p549a34afo913efefebaf5fa97@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Alex Riesen , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Jay Soffian X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 19 14:54:52 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JRSvq-0005ND-9C for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:54:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754306AbYBSNyL (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:54:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754252AbYBSNyK (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:54:10 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:57002 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751757AbYBSNyJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:54:09 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2008 13:54:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 19 Feb 2008 14:54:07 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19IS0leqnBIO0Cf2fcLYsCO5eEx8k5KPT8Q//0n09 WZiacRY8QmZZvM X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <76718490802190549p549a34afo913efefebaf5fa97@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Jay Soffian wrote: > On Feb 19, 2008 2:44 AM, Alex Riesen wrote: > > Jay Soffian, Tue, Feb 19, 2008 03:07:12 +0100: > > > +enum branch_track { > > > + BRANCH_TRACK_NEVER = 0, > > > > enums start at 0 anyway, don't they? > > I don't know, but guys, give me a break on the enums already. Heh. Don't be discouraged. I think you help educating me here, too: > What's the preferred syntax already because the existing code is not > consistent: [...] I had the impression that the first was set to "= 0", and the rest was not explicitely set. But I was obviously wrong. Ciao, Dscho