From: David Kastrup Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:38:07 GMT Subject: Re: Terminology question about remote branches. Message-ID: <85tzre8b4w.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> In-Reply-To: <20070805110200.GA18083@coredump.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 12:56:49PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > >> beyond my imagination that I could have a local following/automerging >> branch that is directly referring to a branch in a remote repo, without >> have a remote-tracking branch. >> >> How could I create such a setup in the first place? >> >> git branch --track something origin/something >> git checkout --track -b something origin/something >> >> are obvious, but what to say if I don't have origin/something? > > I believe the --track setup uses the tracking branches to figure out > which remote/branch combo to track. To do it without a remote tracking > branch, you would have to add the lines to your .git/config manually. Fascinating, really fascinating. Is there actually _anybody_ who would not revert to phrases like "I believe" when describing git's interaction with remote branches? I don't find this particularly logical: origin/something basically boils down referring to a commit. Maybe git-branch --track should allow referring to remote:branch or URLs or something directly rather than a remote tracking branch? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum