Re: [PATCH] Add branch.*.localmerge and documentation update

Josef Weidendorfer [off-list ref] writes:

On Friday 08 December 2006 22:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

"Santi Béjar" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 12/8/06, Josef Weidendorfer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Clarify the meaning of branch.*.merge option and add a similar
branch.*.localmerge option, which can be used to specify a local
tracking branch to be merged by default.

I am not so sure about the "localmerge" stuff anymore.

What convenience would it buy us (including but not limited to
new people), and if there is any, would that outweigh the
potential confusion factor to have two different configuration
variables that do exactly the same thing whose sole difference
is which side of the fetched branch namespace it uses to specify
the merge source?

I just came up with a concrete patch.
I am not saying that this is the only true solution.

I admit that I do not use branch.*.merge and I do not know what
people find lacking in what Santi did in late September with
commit 5372806.  What problem are we trying to solve (not a
rhetorical question -- I am truly lost here)?  Is it only a
confusion between remote and local, or is there something that
cannot be expressed with the current scheme?

Actually, Jakubs one with allowing arbitrary refspecs is nice.
The only problem is that it is not consistent which refspec
shortcuts otherwise, or?

Actually I had a quite opposite reaction about allowing src:dst
notation there.  Does it solve any real problem?  It is unclear
to me.  On the other hand, it gives a false impression that it
can be used instead of remote.*.fetch to copy the remote branch
into local tracking branch, and raises other questions such as
what should happen when you have both, i.e. src:dst is given to
both remote.*.fetch and branch.*.merge, and they do not agree.
Which means it only adds to the confusion.

So I do not think it is worth spending brain cycles talking
about that particular one; it does not even have a patch to 
implement it.

But you have a concrete patch, and if it is fixing a real
problem, then that is worth talking about.  I just do not know
if a problem exists, other than that people can get confused and
write local tracking branch name by mistake when it should be
remote branch name.