Re: Missing branches after clone

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: May 15, 2019, 07:13 UTC
Message-ID: <a05fb45a-69d7-a12b-e76c-f11e985f4a65@iee.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq5zqc8ozn.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On 15/05/2019 02:50, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> It is a 'branch which tracks a remote', and it is has the 'last time I
>> looked' state of the branch that is on the remote server, which may
>> have, by now, advanced or changed.
> Yup, I thought we long time ago decided to discourage use of "remote
> branch(es)" in our documentation to help unconfuse users and stick
> to the term "a remote-tracking branch" (the "remote-tracking" is a
> hyphenated one word)?

I believe we are consistent in using the 'rtb' phrase (I've not checked the hyphen), but for those uninitiated in the duplicitous ways of distributed versioning systems, they can still think that the phrase is simply saying that local branch A will be updated to the state of remote branch B when do a fetch from that remote.

I.e. they think tracking is a direct linkage via fetch, rather than an indirect linkage via a local rtb (a concept that has not yet entered their head, and if if they are aware of the possibility, they haven't joined the dots). Hence my spelling it out the 'French' way.

Show 7 quoted lines

>> So you need to have the three distinct views in your head of 'My
>> branch, held locally', 'my copy of Their branch, from when I last
>> looked', and 'Their branch, on a remote server, in a state I haven't
>> seen recently'.
> Yup.  FWIW, when I need to refer to the last one, I'd always say "a
> branch at the remote" to avoid the confusing term "remote branch".
>

yes, it's tricky. I've shot my foot off a number of times. Thanks Philip