From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 10:24:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] status: show default branch comparison when tracking non-default branch
Message-ID: <20251223102422.36853-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy0mtpxti.fsf@gitster.g>

> In other words, exactly the same way as what we show with the
> tracking branch?
> 
> The triangular workflow involves two remote things.  One is where
> you pull from to catch up.  After building on top, you push to
> somewhere else to publish your work.  This may be a different branch
> in the same repository you pull from, or a branch in a completely
> different repository.  What you pushed out may be processed by
> others and may come back in the branch you pull from eventually to
> complete the triangle.
> 
> In such a triangular workflow, comparison with these two remote
> things may be needed. One with the branch you forked your work from
> to know how much work _other_ people added to the branch to learn
> when to start thinking about catching up, and with the branch you
> are pushing your work to to know how much work you are holding
> locally without pushing out.

Yes, it's the same as when tracking master/main, but with far less complexity for the end-user. For many years I have had the habit of running these on my feature branches:

	git checkout -b feature_branch
	git branch --set-upstream-to origin/$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')

	# To merge in other's code early
	git pull --rebase origin $(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')

	# To push to correct branch, because I'm tracking default instead "feature_branch"
	git push origin $(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)

I have found this very hard to explain the benefits of this to other developers. Git is already scary to many, they are afraid of losing work, so they would rather not mess with the tracking branches and break the regular "git push" functionality.

For me, I feel blind of I can't see how my branch compares the master/main at all times.

> I am not sure what you mean by the word "default" here, though.
> 
> You seem to be using the "what would a new user get when they clone
> the remote (by virtue of their HEAD pointing at that branch)", but
> I am not sure if that is a good way to determine the other remote
> thing to compare with.
>
> Even if one remote branch you pull from (but not push to) has a name
> that is not one of those usual ones like 'main', 'master', 'trunk',
> 'default'

Agreed, this should be as agnostic as possible. "Default" might be me using GitHub terminology. However, it seems that 'git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/upstream/HEAD' always produces the desires result, so for the sake of discussion we can call it "upstream/HEAD" instead of "default".

Harald