# Re: \[PATCH v5 1/2\] branch: accept multiple upstream branches for tracking

- From: Glen Choo \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-12-09 23:47:06 
- List: git
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/12/7915357
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/09/7901746/t.md

```text
Josh Steadmon [ref] writes:

>> > @@ -121,11 +168,18 @@ int install_branch_config(int flag, const char *local, const char *origin, const
>> >  	advise(_(tracking_advice),
>> >  	       origin ? origin : "",
>> >  	       origin ? "/" : "",
>> > -	       shortname ? shortname : remote);
>> > +	       remotes->items[0].string);
>> >  
>> >  	return -1;
>> >  }
>> 
>> When there is more than one item in remotes->items, this advice is
>> _technically_ incorrect because --set-upstream-to only takes a single
>> upstream branch. I think that supporting multiple upstreams in
>> --set-upstream-to is a fairly niche use case and is out of scope of this
>> series, so let's not pursue that option.
>> 
>> Another option would be to replace the mention of --set-upstream-to with
>> "git config add", but that's unfriendly to the >90% of the user
>> population that doesn't want multiple merge entries.
>> 
>> If we leave the advice as-is, even though it is misleading, a user who
>> is sophisticated enough to set up multiple merge entries should also
>> know that --set-upstream-to won't solve their problems, and would
>> probably be able to fix their problems by mucking around with
>> .git/config or git config.
>> 
>> So I think it is ok to not change the advice and to only mention the
>> first merge item. However, it might be worth marking this as NEEDSWORK
>> so that subsequent readers of this file understand that this advice is
>> overly-simplistic and might be worth fixing.
>
> Sounds like we should just have separate advice strings for single vs.
> multiple merge configs?

That sounds like a good idea if it's not too much work. Otherwise, a
NEEDSWORK is still acceptable to me (but that said, I'm not an authority
on this matter).
```