Re: New way of tracking remote branches -- question

> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> 
> > Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> I can see that the remote heads are where they are supposed to be
> >> but no local tracking heads are created (by default).  I had
> >> to do this manually.
> >>
> >> Old behavior was that git did that for you automatically.
> >> So I suppose this is another newbie protection.
> >
> > A very fuzzily stated question which is hard to answer, but I do
> > not think it is another newbie protection, if it apparently is
> > actively hurting you.  Also the documentation may need to be
> > updated to teach you enough about how to achieve what you want.
> 
> Can you state the problem you observed about the recent git in a
> way that is easier to debug?
> 
> For example, you could state:
> 
> 	With older git (I verified that v1.3.0 still works like
> 	this), I used to be able to just say:
> 
> 		$ git fetch
> 
> 	(this is the exact command line -- I am not giving a URL
> 	nor even "origin" after "git fetch").  When the upstream
> 	created a new branch 'blah', the above command created a
> 	new local branch 'blah' automatically for me.  With the
> 	tip of 'master' (e27e609), this does not happen anymore.
> 
> 	My configuration is that I have .git/remotes/origin file
> 	whose contents is ....  I do not have any remote.*.url,
> 	remote.*.fetch, nor branch.*.remote configuration variables.
> 
> to be more helpful.
> 
> I am not dismissing your message as whining.  You probably have
> hit a regression while we adopted the BCP to encourage separate
> remote layout, and I would like to understand the issue.