Re: [PATCH] Only warn about missing branch.<n>.merge in pull.

Josef Weidendorfer [off-list ref] writes:

On Monday 18 December 2006 21:43, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

However, I would actually reuse our versatile (often hated?) config  
handling:

[branch "xyz"]
	remote = blabla # this is the default remote
	merge = master # this is the default branch for the default remote
	merge = pu for remote second # merge 'pu' if pulling from second

Looks a little bit confusing, but is fine with me.
I even would remove the need for the word "remote" in the second merge line.
Anybody using this has to look it up in the documentation, anyway.
Because these options are not really self-describing.

I actually am in favor of Johannes's one, except that it does
look like you are always making a pentapus merge of pu, for,
remote and second branches into xyz ;-).

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Josef Weidendorfer [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Monday 18 December 2006 21:43, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

However, I would actually reuse our versatile (often hated?) config  
handling:

[branch "xyz"]
	remote = blabla # this is the default remote
	merge = master # this is the default branch for the default remote
	merge = pu for remote second # merge 'pu' if pulling from second

Looks a little bit confusing, but is fine with me.
I even would remove the need for the word "remote" in the second merge line.
Anybody using this has to look it up in the documentation, anyway.
Because these options are not really self-describing.

I actually am in favor of Johannes's one, except that it does
look like you are always making a pentapus merge of pu, for,
remote and second branches into xyz ;-).

Would

	merge = pu, when pulling second

be better? ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho