On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes:

...

If we are doing this to generate a local branch that people can work with then we need to be more systemic with no my-branch-name stuff. If follow Dominics approach we should do

...

git fetch bitbucket:username/petsc their-branch-name:username/pullrequest-their-branch-name git push -u origin username/pullrequest-their-branch-name

Sometimes people don't choose meaningful branch names. I.e., sometimes they commit on their master, other times they use different naming conventions Do_Stuff.

Yup, you are right, they could have any crazy name.

I don't see a problem with the integraor choosing a better name.

It cannot be a choose, because I have to be able to find it without asking that person what they chose. That is it has to come automatically from the pull request. I suggest then simply pullrequest-number (where number is the number of the pull request). Or possibly myuserid/pullrequest-number (so everyone knows I am the one who made the local branch for the pull request) Comments, improvements?

It's useful to annotate the merge (to 'next' and 'master') with "PR #123" so that it gets linked from the PR page.