Re: Branch relationships

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: May 14, 2006, 23:55 UTC
Message-ID: <7vslncyxez.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200605150104.46762.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Monday 15 May 2006 00:19, you wrote:
>> > I suppose "branch.<branch name>.origin" is still the way to go for
>> > specifying the upstream?
>> 
>> Probably "origin" is a better name for it; I was assuming
>> "branch.<branch name>.remote = foo" refers to a [remote "foo"]
>> section and means "when on this branch, pull from foo and merge
>> from it".
>
> Maybe.
>
> But there is a misunderstanding. I wanted the branch attribute "origin"
> to specify the upstream _branch_, not a remote.
>
> After a "git clone", we would have
>
>  [remote "origin"]
>    url = ...
>    fetch = master:origin
>
>  [branch "master"]
>    origin = "origin" ; upstream of master is local branch "origin"

Doesn't that arrangement force people to use tracking branches? IOW, "git pull somewhere that-head" fetches that-head, without storing it anywhere in the local repository as a tracking branch, and immediately merges it to the current branch.