From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:43:28 GMT
Subject: Re: git-branch silently ignores --track on local branches
Message-ID: <7vfxzelz5b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071110174557.GC1036@blorf.net>

Wayne Davison <wayne@opencoder.net> writes:

> ...  Is there
> a problem with local branches being supported when explicitly
> requested?

Maybe this one?

commit 6f084a56fcb3543d88d252bb49c1d2bbf2bd0cf3
Author: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Date:   Tue Jul 10 18:50:44 2007 +0100

    branch --track: code cleanup and saner handling of local branches
    
    This patch cleans up some complicated code, and replaces it with a
    cleaner version, using code from remote.[ch], which got extended a
    little in the process.  This also enables us to fix two cases:
    
    The earlier "fix" to setup tracking only when the original ref started
    with "refs/remotes" is wrong.  You are absolutely allowed to use a
    separate layout for your tracking branches.  The correct fix, of course,
    is to set up tracking information only when there is a matching
    remote.<nick>.fetch line containing a colon.
    
    Another corner case was not handled properly.  If two remotes write to
    the original ref, just warn the user and do not set up tracking.
    
    Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
    Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

As a local branch does not have to be "fetched", the restriction
on "remote.<nick>.fetch" is sort of pointless.

Also why remote.<nick>.fetch needs a colon, I begin to wonder.
You can be keep fetching and merging from the same branch of the
same remote without keeping a remote tracking branch for that,
but the above "correct fix" forbids that.

Dscho, what were we smoking when we made this change?