Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?
- From
- Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 29, 2008, 10:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <49083D2D.4020202@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20081029100313.GP3612@atjola.homenet>
Björn Steinbrink wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On 2008.10.29 16:55:48 +0800, Liu Yubao wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I often feel tracking branches are useless to me, because there are remote >> branches and I work on my private branch in most time. >> >> repos >> | >> |-- my (private branch, do my dirty work) >> |-- master (tracking branch) >> |-- origin/master (remote branch) > > Actually, origin/master is the "[remote] tracking branch". master is > just a branch that has config settings for "git pull" defaults. ;-) > > "Remote branches" are the actual branches on a remote repository. >
Oh, I'm misguided by the --track option, thank you for clarifying it!
Show 13 quoted lines
> In your case, you probably want: > git checkout -b my-stuff origin/master > git config branch.my-stuff.rebase true > > and then you can do: > git pull > > Instead of: > git fetch origin > git rebase origin/master > > You can also setup branch.autosetuprebase, to automatically get the > rebase setup, so you can skip the call to "git config" above.
A new config setting, git amazes me again @_@
It's great, thanks!
Show 12 quoted lines
> > And you can just delete the "master" branch if you don't use it. There's > nothing that forces you to keep any branches around that you don't use. > But that doesn't affect the usefulness of tracking branches or branches > that have "git pull" defaults :-) > >> BTW: I feel the terminalogy "remote branch" is confused, because I must >> synchronize it with `git fetch`. I feel it's better to call it "tracking >> branch" // seems will lead to bigger confusion to experienced git users:-( > > See above, that's already the case ;-) >
Got it, --rebase and config.<branch>.rebase and config.autosetuprebase, thank you again:-)
> Björn >