From: Martin Langhoff Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:57:09 GMT Subject: Re: New way of tracking remote branches -- question Message-ID: <46a038f90701090057w31d46530x4f70a76287bbef33@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7vejq9c9tf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On 1/6/07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > You are talking about the separate remote layout "git clone" > creates, and talking about the fact that there is nothing in > refs/heads/ except master while refs/remotes/origin/ mirrors > what the remote side has faithfully, aren't you? > > If that is the case, I can explain. It is a good topic to talk > about. It's confusing me too ;-) though I think I'm getting to understand it. Still more comfortable with the cogito style, personally. The only thing I see as a clear improvement in git "remotes" is that I can fetch a bundle of heads for review. And that it can track heads that rewind. All the magic that happens if you have multiple pull lines is a bit scary, the kind of thing that should be disallowed or use a different syntax. One aspect that I am getting used to, but I still consider slightly bogus is that as we have added a layer of indirection, what used to point to a specific remote branch now points to a bundle or remotes heads. It is quite disconcerting to say git-pull origin, and see that pu is being pulled in. And fortunately I'm tracking repos that don't have an 'origin' head. Otherwise I'd get origin/origin. :-( [reading on now...] martin