From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:31:38 +0100 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <405044.6078.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7vy7omyuaf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 02 12:28:56 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 1H1hp6-0000iZ-D2 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:28:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932749AbXABL2t (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 06:28:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932848AbXABL2t (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 06:28:49 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:51310 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932749AbXABL2s (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 06:28:48 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H1hos-0004OB-ST for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:28:39 +0100 Received: from host-81-190-20-195.torun.mm.pl ([81.190.20.195]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:28:38 +0100 Received: from jnareb by host-81-190-20-195.torun.mm.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:28:38 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-81-190-20-195.torun.mm.pl Mail-Copies-To: jnareb@gmail.com User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. If remember correctly there were added some magic which makes git search on pull first remote branches (to allow to pull without tracking branches), then tracking branches. This I think supercedes alternate proposal of using branch..mergeLocal. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git