Re: Terminology question about remote branches.

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

Ok, let's have another go. Maybe I have understood more as compared with last time.

git-branch/git-commit -b creates and manages local branches, nothing else. Local branches' defining feature is that they have a branch head I can move around myself.

Then there are non-local branches. Their defining feature is that they have no locally moving branch head and _must_ track a remote branch.

But local branches _also_ can track the progress/head of a remote branch. Since they have a locally moving branch head, this will often lead to merge conflicts which must be resolved.

So this is more or less what I understand now. There really is no difference between "tracking" and "following" as I thought previously. It is just that a local branch which happens to track a remote branch is basically a remote tracking branch with a head of its own.

Which means it can get merge conflicts. Can we get merge conflicts with a remote tracking branch, too? Namely when the remote branch messed with its history, rebased/reverted stuff?

So that the real difference between a local and a remote tracking branch is not that the latter tracks a remote branch (the former can do that as well), but that the latter has no local branch head and that saves us a lot (but not necessary all) merge conflicts?