Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] git-fetch: Split fetch and merge logic

On 2/20/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

"Santi Béjar" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

quoted

There are two cases where the behaviour is changed:

1) branch.*.merge no longer must exactly match the remote part
   of the branch fetched. Both are expanded in full (as refs/heads/...)
   and matched afterwards.

...

quoted

 I see this as a regression.
If you are setting configuration, wouldn't you rather see the
behaviour consistent even when remote adds new refs?

Maybe I misread your description, but I took it to mean that you
are allowing:

        branch.master.merge = a

to mean what we traditionally spelled

        branch.master.merge = refs/heads/a

and guessed (I haven't looked for where it happens in the code)
the way you do that conversion is by tail-matching the ref; if
the other end creates "refs/heads/b/a", suddenly remote branch
b/a starts matching that pattern wouldn't it?

No. branch.master.merge = a is equivalent to refs/heads/a and only
matches with the remote branch refs/heads/a. It continues to exactly
match the two branches, but with the full patch (refs/...). So now it
is possible to have:

[remote "origin"]
url = ...
fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/heads/origin/*

[branch "master"]
remote = origin
merge = master

or the other way:

[remote "origin"]
url = ...
fetch = master:refs/heads/origin

[branch "master"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/master

Earlier we fixed the ambiguous use of branch.*.merge in
756373da; I think the same reasoning should apply here.

Configuration is something you set once because you want to
forget about it afterwards (iow, not having to type every time),
and I think making sure it names things unambiguously outweighs
one-time convenience of being able to write the configuration in
a looser fashion.

It is unambiguous.

But if it is problematic I'll try to keep the current behaviour.

Santi