Re: origin/branchname and tracking branch pointing to different commits?

From: Eugene Sajine <euguess@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 8, 2010, 17:50 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTilfBqc3Qww-4MbAcxuqBIj0LdbW9R3QXjCiy_J4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vljaptp1j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Show 16 quoted lines

>
> In your transcript, they can say "git fetch" (or "git fetch origin") and
> branch is copied to origin/branch, so instead of doing:
>
>    $ git fetch origin branchname
>    $ git log FETCH_HEAD ;# or whatever inspection using FETCH_HEAD
>
> they can do
>
>    $ git fetch ;# or git fetch origin
>    $ git log origin/branch ;# or whatever inspection using it
>
> In short, teach them that they no longer have reason to learn or run "git
> fetch origin branchname".
>
>

Junio,

Yes, that's pretty much what we are doing. we are using "git fetch origin" to update local remote branches (remote/branch) and then use the information in there to inspect what are the incoming changes. I was never teaching anybody to use "git fetch origin branch" So, we are on the same page here with you.

The confusion though is that "git pull origin master" uses FETCH_HEAD to store the information about remote master branch instead of origin/master branch. Therefore when people are using pull - they get confused why this branch (origin/master) was not updated. Do you think that FETCH_HEAD usage for pull still makes sense?

Thanks, Eugene