Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2009, #07; Wed, 28)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 30, 2009, 13:18 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901301415260.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090130045131.GB18655@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Jeff King wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 01:20:20PM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> 
> > > It wouldn't help the case of "somebody
> > > else pushed some content that you want to pull", but like you said, I
> > > think the primary workflow is that you immediately push after cloning
> > > the empty repo.
> > 
> > Also, the only way to support the "somebody else pushed already"
> > workflow would be to assume the user wants to name the branch
> > 'master', which might not be the case at all.
> 
> You could make a guess that they will use "master", and if you are
> wrong, it behaves as now. But if you are right, "git pull" pulls down
> master automatically.
> 
> But that is getting a little confusing. So let's push this "git push
> --track" idea to completion and see how people like it.

How about installing

	[branch "master"]
		remote = origin
		merge = refs/heads/master

by default? It is a safe bet that this will be the case for 99% of all users that want to clone an empty repository (especially if they are putting their public repositories on something like repo.or.cz, where you cannot change the default branch from "master" to something else).

And if somebody wants to track another branch, tough, she has to call this:

	$ git checkout -t origin/blablabla

Ciao, Dscho