Re: Terminology question about remote branches.

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Aug 4, 2007, 18:00 UTC
Message-ID: <85hcnfdvtr.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708041804260.13596@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>

Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "Lars Hjemli" <lh@elementstorage.no> writes:
>>
>>> The magic setup that makes this happen is the following lines in .git/config:
>> It would be helpful.  Except that nothing whatsoever can be found in
>> .git/config concerning my local and my remote tracking branches.  So
>> where is that information _really_ hidden away?
>
>> What gives?
>
> It would appear that your repo was created with an old version of
> git. Which also explains why you were talking about origin as a
> branch - which it used to be (a real local branch too ...), rather
> than as a remote - which it is now.
>
> The whole remotes/tracking mechanism changed in 1.5.0 - now it's
> much more flexible (and probably more complicated too).

I think I am going to cry. So I need to rebase my branches, pull out the resulting patch sets, scrap my repository, clone it new from upstream, reapply my branches, in order to have a system where the documentation is somewhat in synch with the actual behavior?

[...]

No, it would seem that I can just git-clone -l my repository and be set up in the new order of things. Nice.

However, it would appear from my experiments up to now that the --track option _can't_ be made to work with a 1.4 repository. I think that is worth mentioning in the docs.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum