Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Apr 24, 2007, 05:15 UTC
Message-ID: <7v1wiabbfr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704231609440.9964@woody.linux-foundation.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> I'd personally be ok with a
>
> 	git clone --default=<branch> <url>
>
> to create something where "master" defaults to some other remote branch, 
> but that just addresses the syntax. And quite frankly, I don't think we 
> *need* to. We should just tell people how _easy_ it is to track some other 
> branch now.

I agree with this (and everything you said in your message). Keep the semantics the same, except that behave as if remote HEAD pointed at a different branch than what it really points at.

If Carl is also happy with the syntax, we can conclude this discussion and:

 (1) have that as an enhancement to git-clone;

 (2) add a how-to document or a section to the manual to teach
     people how to track one or more branches, based on the
     messages already posted on this thread.