Luben Tuikov [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
quoted
Luben Tuikov [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Questions:
What is the reasonining of defining branch.<name>.merge to point
to the "remote's setup"?
See list archives.
Because you are not required to use remote tracking branches.
Then why does it point to the _remote_ mapping? One shouldn't
Because [remote] is NOT about mapping. It asks the fetch
mechanism to fetch from that remote, so the primary thing you
should look at is .url, not RHS of colon on .fetch lines. Use
of tracking branches is strictly optional.
--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
Because [remote] is NOT about mapping. It asks the fetch
mechanism to fetch from that remote, so the primary thing you
should look at is .url, not RHS of colon on .fetch lines. Use
of tracking branches is strictly optional.
Remote
------
Please help me understand. Here is a sample remote from
an actual repo (actual names changed):
[remote "origin"]
url = http://blah/bleah.git
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
This basically says: "Get it" from such and such url, where
on the repo at that url, i.e. the remote side, you will
find stuff in "refs/heads/", and when you get it here, locally,
put it in refs/remotes/origin/.
Now if this isn't a mapping, then please can someone
explain to me what a "mapping" is?
The "fetch = <remote>:<local>" is inherently a mapping,
its syntax dictates it, as does the actual actions
it performs: "fetch" from "remote" and "put in local <local>".
Branch
------
Here is an actual example:
[branch "branchA"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/branchA
Yeah, but by default "refs/heads/branchA" doesn't exist (see
my previous email). It doesn't have to, since it specifies
the "remote part", but that has already been handled by
"[remote]".
Unless of course "[branch "..."]" specifies the _remote_ branch
being tracked in refs/remotes/origin. Is this the case.
Does "[branch]" apply to local branches too? If so,
then what happens when refs/heads/branchA does exist and is
the same as the one it describes -- i.e. completely old behavior.
Thanks,
Luben