Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Updated patch series for default upstream merge

Jared Hance [off-list ref] writes:

Notes/Complications:
	- I'm not sure whether the option should be merge.defaultUpstream
	  or merge.defaultToUpstream

Probably the latter.

	- Should [remotes] be changed to [branches]? I felt like it was
	  a completely different change and didn't belong in the patch series.

Perhaps at the beginning (just like your 1/3 refactoring) or at the end as
a separate patch?

	- I left one of the ifs with unnecessary braces for clarity because
	  of a nested if-else: is this the preferred style?

If you are talking about the one at @@ -1017,9 +1023,13 @@, it looks fine
to me.  The new "else" you added to @@ -525,6 +527,8 @@ may probably want
to start on the same line as closing "}" of the "if", though.  IOW, like
this:

	if (cond) {
        	...
	} else {
        	...
	}

not like this:

	if (cond) {
        	...
	}
        else {
        	...
	}

But other than that looks reasonable.

Thanks.