Re: Missing branches after clone

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: May 14, 2019, 10:33 UTC
Message-ID: <0c9ec78a-9245-e1df-7ec6-a5d77d1a5261@iee.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8AX9Wp3W=d1=ozF9nZXGE1muooMf7fKCtdOOi1g8QRmig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ulrich, On 14/05/2019 11:12, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> Then I foundhttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/10312521/how-to-fetch-all-git-branches  which handles the subject...
>> But still the most common solution there still looks like an ugly hack.
>> Thus I suggest to improve the man-pages (unless done already)
> Yeah I expected to see at least some definition of remote-tracking
> branches (vs local ones) but I didn't see one. Room for improvement.

Yes, the 'remote tracking branch' name [RTB] is very 'French' in its backwardness (see NATO/OTAN).

It is a 'branch which tracks a remote', and it is has the 'last time I looked' state of the branch that is on the remote server, which may have, by now, advanced or changed.

So you need to have the three distinct views in your head of 'My branch, held locally', 'my copy of Their branch, from when I last looked', and 'Their branch, on a remote server, in a state I haven't seen recently'.

Finding a better name for the "RTB", one with an easier cognitive load for those trying to understand Git, would be an improvement.

Though there has been a similar issue with 'staging the index'. Ultimately it is a new way of thinking about artefacts (perfect duplicates, no originals, no master, no copies, just verification hashes) so needs new terms and a difficult learning experience.

-- 
Philip