Re: more useful set-upstream

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Sep 21, 2010, 09:30 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqfwx3phou.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=c51u=pQ3TLt3YE54mbwy8AqRb2rcsatEVo2U5@mail.gmail.com>

Ramana Kumar <ramana.kumar@gmail.com> writes:

> I don't understand why all my branches haven't automatically had the right
> upstream set anyway - am I missing some configuration of pull and
> push?

If you keep it simple, they should:

* git clone wherever => checks out the default branch, and sets the
  upstream for it.

* git checkout foo => if foo doesn't exist, and <remote>/foo exists,
  foo is created and upstream is set to <remote>/foo (that's rather
  recent)

But we could probably have a better way to set the upstream after the fact when the initialisation magic didn't do its job.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/