From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Per-remote tracking branch Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:29:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20090924062911.GC24486@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 24 08:29:11 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MqhpH-0005Ds-E2 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:29:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752879AbZIXG3C (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:29:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752562AbZIXG3B (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:29:01 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:43259 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752811AbZIXG3A (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:29:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 3137 invoked by uid 107); 24 Sep 2009 06:32:25 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:32:25 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:29:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:29:58PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Is there a way, with Git, to specify a tracking branch on a per-remote > basis? I don't think so, and I'm not sure there is an easy way to extend the current configuration scheme. Adding multiple config options like this: [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master remote = alternate merge = refs/heads/master looks a bit hack-ish to me, as there is an implicit correlation between the ordering of 'merge' entries and 'remote' entries. And it feels a little backwards. When I say "git pull foo", I would find it equally likely to discover the pulled branch under "remote.foo" as it would to find it under "branch.master". Of course, in either case, you have to combine the context (current branch _and_ selected remote) to come up with the actual information. So I guess either is "equally correct" in a sense. Anyway, mostly just my idle speculation. -Peff