Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes: > On Monday 15 May 2006 00:19, you wrote: >> > I suppose "branch.<branch name>.origin" is still the way to go for >> > specifying the upstream? >> >> Probably "origin" is a better name for it; I was assuming >> "branch.<branch name>.remote = foo" refers to a [remote "foo"] >> section and means "when on this branch, pull from foo and merge >> from it". > > Maybe. > > But there is a misunderstanding. I wanted the branch attribute "origin" > to specify the upstream _branch_, not a remote. > > After a "git clone", we would have > > [remote "origin"] > url = ... > fetch = master:origin > > [branch "master"] > origin = "origin" ; upstream of master is local branch "origin" Doesn't that arrangement force people to use tracking branches? IOW, "git pull somewhere that-head" fetches that-head, without storing it anywhere in the local repository as a tracking branch, and immediately merges it to the current branch. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Mon May 15 09:55:46 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-05-15 09:56:09 EST