Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior

From: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 5, 2007, 23:15 UTC
Message-ID: <826.67287.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vtzz9usyp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> 
> Because [remote] is NOT about mapping.  It asks the fetch
> mechanism to fetch from that remote, so the primary thing you
> should look at is .url, not RHS of colon on .fetch lines.  Use
> of tracking branches is strictly optional.

Remote ------

Please help me understand. Here is a sample remote from an actual repo (actual names changed):

[remote "origin"]
        url = http://blah/bleah.git
        fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*

This basically says: "Get it" from such and such url, where on the repo at that url, i.e. the remote side, you will find stuff in "refs/heads/", and when you get it here, locally, put it in refs/remotes/origin/.

Now if this isn't a mapping, then please can someone explain to me what a "mapping" is?

The "fetch = <remote>:<local>" is inherently a mapping, its syntax dictates it, as does the actual actions it performs: "fetch" from "remote" and "put in local <local>".

Branch ------

Here is an actual example:

[branch "branchA"]
        remote = origin
        merge = refs/heads/branchA

Yeah, but by default "refs/heads/branchA" doesn't exist (see my previous email). It doesn't have to, since it specifies the "remote part", but that has already been handled by "[remote]".

Unless of course "[branch "..."]" specifies the _remote_ branch being tracked in refs/remotes/origin. Is this the case.

Does "[branch]" apply to local branches too? If so, then what happens when refs/heads/branchA does exist and is the same as the one it describes -- i.e. completely old behavior.

Thanks,
    Luben