Re: [PATCH] doc: merge: mention default of defaulttoupstream

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Commit a01f7f2ba0 (merge: enable defaulttoupstream by default,
> > 2014-04-20) forgot to mention the new default in the configuration
> > documentation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/config/merge.txt | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/config/merge.txt b/Documentation/config/merge.txt
> > index cb2ed58907..6b66c83eab 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/config/merge.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/config/merge.txt
> > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ merge.defaultToUpstream::
> >  	branches at the remote named by `branch.<current branch>.remote`
> >  	are consulted, and then they are mapped via `remote.<remote>.fetch`
> >  	to their corresponding remote-tracking branches, and the tips of
> > -	these tracking branches are merged.
> > +	these tracking branches are merged. Defaults to true.
> 
> That's definititely an improvement.
> 
> Will queue.
> 
> By the way, is the convoluted description around remote-tracking
> branches still understandable to those who often work on a branch
> forked from another local branch, or would readers be helped if we
> had a two separate descriptions (one forking from remote and the
> other forking locally)?

I don't think there's any fundamental difference between origin/master,
and master. In both cases setting upstream to that simply means "I want
`git rebase` to use this by default".

There is a separate question of where you should fetch from when
upstream is 'master' but that's another topic.


What does require explanation is the triangular workflow. Separating
descriptions for a triangular worflow, and a two-way workflow might make
sense.

-- 
Felipe Contreras