Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:23:21AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

quoted

Should this be "upstream remote" rather than "upstream branch"? I don't
think we should be looking at branch.*.merge at all for git-fetch.

As a general user, how do I configure the "upstream remote"?

Yeah, it's not a term we use elsewhere, so it's not great. Probably
"default remote" would be better, or even just say "branch.*.remote for
the current branch" or something.

Yeah, general users don't know what you are talking about when you say that.

I dunno. I don't particularly like any of those, but I really dislike
the imprecision of "upstream branch" in this case.

For most users it's the remote configured by:

% git branch --set-upstream-to foo
% git checkout -b foo origin/foo
% git checkout -t -b foo bar

So when they read "upstream branch" they know from where it got configured.

-- 
Felipe Contreras