Re: What's in git.git (stable)

Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:

Junio C Hamano wrote:
...

quoted

quoted

quoted

Possibilities:

 (1) Forget about that "protection" business.  If you do not
     want mistakes, use 'branch.*.merge' but otherwise we will
     continue to follow the good old "first set of branches"
     rule.

What about marking default branch to merge explicitely using
"Merge:" in remotes/<repo>, or remote.<name>.merge?

Sorry, how is that an improvement over the current branch.*.merge?
and how would that help not breaking existing setups?

I meant that in addition to forgetting about "protection" business.
This would be intermediate improvement over old behavior.

I do not think so.  It does not talk about "when on my local
branch X do this", and applies to all pulls from the named
remote.  Then longstanding rule of merging the first set of
branches is just fine and as expressive.  You see them the first
in the list, and you already know they somehow matter more.

On the other hand, I think Santi's branch.*.merge (done in
commit 5372806a) _was_ a real improvement.

Perhaps make "protection" business optional, default to on for
new users?

Now the question is how you would tell "new users".

The possibility (2) is not even good enough, because even old
timers work in a newly cloned repositories.