Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > branch.<name>.merge:: > Defines, for the local branch <name>, the upstream branch ref > _on the remote_ (as given by branch.<name>.remote). > The upstream ref may be different from the local branch ref. > > optionally s/different from/ same as/ ?
That "optionally" part is exactly why I said "upstream and remote tracking names may or may not differ is irrelevant information". >> The name of the branch at the remote `branch.<name>.remote` that >> is used as the upstream branch for the given branch. It tells >> `git fetch`, etc., which branch to merge and ... >> > If this, should we also say it (the key value) is that of the upstream > branch _ref_? Yeah, that makes it clear that readers should not write "master" and use "refs/heads/master" instead. It may even be more (technically) correct to say just "ref" without branch (this ref does not have to be a branch at the remote repository at all). I am not sure if we want to go that far to make it more correct and also make it hint that using a non-branch ref is a valid configuration to readers, but I agree it is a good idea to avoid saying "name" (which implies that "master" is OK, which is not). Thanks.
