Hi,

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Julian Phillips wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 2007 February 28 14:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > As can be seen from my other messages, I'm experimenting a little with
> > > git and trying to understand how its workflow compares with arch.  Right
> > > now, my procedure for branching off a remote archive is:
> > > 
> > >    git checkout -b branchname remote/upstreambranch
> > >    git config --add branch.branchname.remote remote
> > >    git config --add branch.branchname.merge refs/heads/upstreambranch
> > > 
> > > Is there a reason why "git branch" and "git checkout -b" should not
> > > automatically do the two "git-config --add"s when the source branch is
> > > remote?
> > 
> > I can see why that would be handy, but I often make short lived 
> > branches off a remote; and I wouldn't want my config cluttered up with 
> > branch defintions.
> 
> How about adding an option to tell checkout/branch that a tracking 
> branch is wanted (-t perhaps) - or perhaps a way to say that you don't 
> want to track the remote (depending on which is more popular)?

I don't think that you should be forced to do it explicitely. If you want 
to merge in another branch, you can do that _explicitely_. So, defaulting 
to what most people want anyway is A Good Thing.

Just my 2 cents,
Dscho
-
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.html