git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Dangers of working on a tracking branch

From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date
Feb 16, 2007, 02:00 UTC
Message-ID
<er333i$787$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To
<17876.53654.426022.454712@lisa.zopyra.com>
Bill Lear wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 15:21:38 (-0600) Bill Lear writes:
>>On Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 16:00:23 (-0500) Nicolas Pitre writes:
>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Bill Lear wrote:
>>>
>>>> We are about to switch to git 1.5 from git 1.4.4.1.  I cannot remember
>>>> if someone posted about this, but what is the danger of working on a
>>>> tracking branch --- there are abundant cautions about doing this, but
>>>> I can't recall and can't find the reason this is bad.
>>>
>>>A tracking branch is supposed to be a local mirror of what is available 
>>>remotely.  If you commit local changes to it then you break that model.
>>
>>Ok, so I break the model, what is the harm in that?  Can I no longer
>>pull from or push to the remote branch?  Do I corrupt something
>>locally?  Does something else break?  I'm trying to formulate an
>>explanation to our users why the 1.5 way is superior and I can't just
>>say "if you do that you break the model".

You cannot fetch or push to the remote branch if you made some commits on the tracking branch ("broke the model") and remote branch has other commits. You can force the issue, but then either remote (for push) or local (for fetch) commits would be lost.

Sidenote: for some branches you have to skip fast-forward check, because
they have rewritten history (e.g. pu branch in git.git).
 
> BTW, my ignorant assumption is that for merging to take place, git
> requires two branches, so 'git pull' will fetch into the tracking
> branch and then merge onto your ... uh ... whatever the name of the
> working version of your tracking branch is.

But one of those branches can be temporary "branch" FETCH_HEAD (if you use "git pull <URL>" syntax, and do not use tracking (remote) branches).

> BTW, again, why does git clone not have an option to just create all
> of the "working versions" (better name needed) of tracking branches?

Because usually you work with one branch with tracking (remote) + local branch workflow; I think with multiple branches you usually use temporary feature branches...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
Previous: Bill LearNext: Bill Lear
Message 14 of 22 in “Dangers of working on a tracking branch”
  1. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  2. Nicolas PitreFeb 15, 2007
  3. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  4. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  5. Jeff KingFeb 15, 2007
  6. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  7. Jeff KingFeb 15, 2007
  8. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  9. Shawn O. PearceFeb 15, 2007
  10. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  11. Shawn O. PearceFeb 15, 2007
  12. Jeff KingFeb 15, 2007
  13. Bill LearFeb 15, 2007
  14. Jakub NarebskiFeb 16, 2007
  15. Bill LearFeb 16, 2007
  16. Jeff KingFeb 16, 2007
  17. Bill LearFeb 16, 2007
  18. Jeff KingFeb 16, 2007
  19. Santi BéjarFeb 16, 2007
  20. Nicolas PitreFeb 16, 2007
  21. Bill LearFeb 16, 2007
  22. Nicolas PitreFeb 15, 2007

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.