Re: [Bug] branch.*.merge interpreted too strictly by tracking logic

2014-02-05 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > Did your report come > out of a real case, or was it just something you noticed? Some git-wrappers (like "repo") are reported to muck with the configuration files. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vge

Re: [Bug] branch.*.merge interpreted too strictly by tracking logic

2014-02-05 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:05:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I don't recall us ever doing anything after that. I don't have a problem > > with making it work, of course, but I am not sure if it is really a bug. > > Once people get used to us being extra nice in some places, other > less ni

Re: [Bug] branch.*.merge interpreted too strictly by tracking logic

2014-02-05 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > Is it legal to put an unqualified ref there? A wise man once said[1]: > > > Actually, it is broken in a lot of places. for-each-ref relies on > > the same code as "git status", "git checkout", etc, which will all > > fail to display tracking info. I believe the same code

Re: [Bug] branch.*.merge interpreted too strictly by tracking logic

2014-02-05 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:49:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Let's tell these branches that they are both supposed to be building > on top of 'master'. > > : gitster track/master; git config branch.foo.remote . > : gitster track/master; git config branch.foo.merge refs/heads/master >