Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Date: Oct 29, 2008, 13:29 UTC
Message-ID: <fc339e4a0810290629g57c6cec3idcbc4b1c1d5d0159@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <490833AD.70806@gmail.com>

On Oct 29, 2008 6:58pm, Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > Extremely useful. I usually keep local branches closely synchronized
> > with a remote "central" version, and tracking branches make the frequent
> > push/pull much more convenient.
>
> In my work flow, I don't keep changes in local branch for long time,
> I rebase it regularly and push them to central branch or discard them
> if the upstream rejects.
>
> You are right, I realize tracking branches is useful for people who keeps
> local changes for long time and track the upstream branch at the same
> time.

I don't keep local changes for a long time, I push daily. The local tracking branch and the corresponding remote branch are basically copies of each other, in different locations. I also do regularly rebasing, but against a _different_ remote branch.

There are never merge commits, because all merges done by pull are fast-forwards. If I were to push changes from multiple working directories to the central location, I'd have to be more careful about the pull-merging -- a rebase-on-pull as you suggest would be useful -- but I generally don't.

-Miles

-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.