This patch actually brings up two different issues

 - I actually prefer code and documentation to be separated. Finding the 
   actual changes to code in this patch is made much harder by the fact
   that most of the changes are documentation updates. In many ways it 
   would have been nicer to separate the two out - first the actual 
   change, then the docs updates.

   Maybe that's just me.

 - I'd much rather have a generic "address rewriting layer" than a "-b" 

   I don't mind the shorthand at all, but I don't think it should be that
   special. It's not "worthy" of a flag - if you have a shorthand that 
   says "linus == rsync://", then I think it 
   should just work, and 

        git pull linus

   should end up not needing a "-b" flag. It's not like there is any 
   real ambiguity.

Now, I'd like the address rewriting to actually be fairly capable, so it 
should be a script of its own.

And it's not necessarily just the branch handling, but more of a generic
shorthand: I'd love to be able to mix something like

        git pull jgarzik/misc-2.6 upstream

and "jgarzik" would be expanded (through something like .git/branches) to 
""), resulting in the 
_full_ path being expanded to upstream

which I have to write out in full (or, more commonly, cut-and-paste) right


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to