git-branch silently ignores --track on local branches

I used to be able to create a branch that tracked master (or another local branch) by using "git branch --track new-branch" from that checked-out branch. However, this functionality was apparently removed and now the --track option is silently ignored for local branches. I'd love to have this functionality restored. Is there a problem with local branches being supported when explicitly requested?

..wayne..

Wayne Davison <wayne@opencoder.net> writes:

Maybe this one?

commit 6f084a56fcb3543d88d252bb49c1d2bbf2bd0cf3
Author: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Date:   Tue Jul 10 18:50:44 2007 +0100

    branch --track: code cleanup and saner handling of local branches
    
    This patch cleans up some complicated code, and replaces it with a
    cleaner version, using code from remote.[ch], which got extended a
    little in the process.  This also enables us to fix two cases:
    
    The earlier "fix" to setup tracking only when the original ref started
    with "refs/remotes" is wrong.  You are absolutely allowed to use a
    separate layout for your tracking branches.  The correct fix, of course,
    is to set up tracking information only when there is a matching
    remote.<nick>.fetch line containing a colon.
    
    Another corner case was not handled properly.  If two remotes write to
    the original ref, just warn the user and do not set up tracking.
    
    Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
    Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

As a local branch does not have to be "fetched", the restriction on "remote.<nick>.fetch" is sort of pointless.

Also why remote.<nick>.fetch needs a colon, I begin to wonder. You can be keep fetching and merging from the same branch of the same remote without keeping a remote tracking branch for that, but the above "correct fix" forbids that.

Dscho, what were we smoking when we made this change?

Hi,

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

IIRC it was you, Junio, who complained first that the local branches have tracking set up.

The point here was to find out what to track when we do a "git branch --track <name> <origname>". So we definitely only want to find those remotes that fetch to a certain tracking branch.

Sure, you can set up branch.<x>.merge to a branch that is not tracked. But git cannot find out which one it is in the command "branch".

Dude, I, uh, I think I, uh, don't remember.  Peace.

Ciao, Dscho