From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch: add missing documentation Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:40:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20130924054053.GA6192@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1379772563-11000-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1379772563-11000-2-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20130924050343.GF2766@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130924053023.GA5875@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 24 07:41:03 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VOLMs-00083O-Id for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:41:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750716Ab3IXFk6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:40:58 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:53201 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750706Ab3IXFk5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:40:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 748 invoked by uid 102); 24 Sep 2013 05:40:56 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:40:56 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:40:53 -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 24, 2013 at 12:36:38AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Yeah, it's not a term we use elsewhere, so it's not great. Probably > > "default remote" would be better, or even just say "branch.*.remote for > > the current branch" or something. > > Yeah, general users don't know what you are talking about when you say that. Right, I understand your complaint and agree that those terms are potentially confusing. > > I dunno. I don't particularly like any of those, but I really dislike > > the imprecision of "upstream branch" in this case. > > For most users it's the remote configured by: > > % git branch --set-upstream-to foo > % git checkout -b foo origin/foo > % git checkout -t -b foo bar > > So when they read "upstream branch" they know from where it got configured. Yes, but it is also wrong, in the sense that the upstream branch is unrelated. You are giving breadcrumbs to users who know "upstream branch" as a concept and nothing else, but you are misleading users who know that branch.*.remote exists. I was hoping you might suggest something that can help both users by being both precise and giving the appropriate breadcrumbs. -Peff