Local branch ahead of tracked remote branch but git push claims everything up-to-date

Hello,

I've used git for quite some time now but haven't run into this kind of issue before.

I created a new branch from a remote branch that me and another developer share: $ git checkout --track -b mybranch origin/remotebranch

I make some changes, commit them but then switch to another branch and do some work there.

I return to checkout my new branch to do some work: $ git checkout mybranch Switched to branch "mybranch " Your branch is ahead of the tracked remote branch 'origin/remotebranch' by 4 commits. mybranch

Accurately, it has 4 commits that I haven't pushed yet. I try to push them but I get the following: $ git push origin remotebranch Everything up-to-date

Any ideas? This is really strange. Clearly I have missing commits, my teammate doesn't see those 4 when he pulls and yet I can't add them.

[branch "mybranch"]
	remote = origin
	merge = refs/heads/remotebranch

ir0s, Wed, Aug 20, 2008 22:26:09 +0200:

Just (assuming that tracking information is correct)

    git push

or (if you want to be absolutely sure, and be able to find and understand the fact afterwards in your shells history)

    git push origin HEAD:remotebranch

Hello,

Am 20.08.2008 um 22:26 schrieb ir0s:

You need to name the local branch, not the remote one:

$ git push origin mybranch

It should then push to remotebranch.

HTH, Andreas

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de> wrote:

Not only that, but the "ahead of tracked branch" message depends on your local copy of the remote branch, not the remote copy of the remote branch. So after pushing, you have to do:

   git fetch origin

I've often wondered if we can't just have push refetch the updated remote ref automatically. It's extremely hard to explain to newbies that after a push, the order of refs from newest to oldest is 'origin master', 'master', and 'origin/master'.

Have fun,

Avery

"Avery Pennarun" <apenwarr@gmail.com> writes:

I think we have long been doing so.  Daniel, correct me.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

...and I'm dumb.

I apologize. "git pull origin mybranch" does not update origin/mybranch. "git push origin mybranch" does.

It could be argued that pull should update the local reference too, but that's irrelevant at the moment.

Have fun,

Avery

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Avery Pennarun wrote:

That is actually to say that fetch should do it (pull calls fetch for that part), and I agree with that, assuming you've actually got that fetch config, of course.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

Hmm, traditionally, an explicit refspec on the command line that does not store overrides the configured ones that do store, and I've been using it as a feature when I run test fetches. If I do not like fetched result, I can tell the other guy to fix his history and I do not have to contaminate the history my tracking ref points at. IOW, I use my tracking refs not just "this is where the guy is", but "this is the last good one I fetched from that guy".

I could be persuaded to use reflog (e.g. "git diff his@{1}..his") and manual tagging (i.e. "git tag -f last-good-his his") myself, but this is "I'd _tolerate_ such a change myself", certainly not "I am happy with that change and I'd help you guys advocate it and try convincing others who shared my expectations to switch to reglog and manual tagging."

Sorry if you get this twice, oddly my first attempt to send this bounced. Thank you for all the good advice however, none of it seemed to resolve my issue.

Attempting to call: $git push origin mybranch

Results in the same message: Everything up to date =/ I also tried to call $git fetch origin just in case, and doing a pull doesn't return anything (which makes sense, no one pushed anything to the branch -- although I seem to be the only one with this issue.)

Could my branch have somehow diverged from the origin remotebranch?

-- Irene

Junio C Hamano wrote:

ir0s venit, vidit, dixit 21.08.2008 17:35:

What do the following report:

git ls-remote origin git ls-remote . git log --pretty=oneline mybranch...origin/remotebranch

Michael

Hi Michael,

Here are my results:

$ git ls-remote origin 138ea08f9680a8def085b793c9cee70eed0e1f3b HEAD 138ea08f9680a8def085b793c9cee70eed0e1f3b refs/heads/master 75290a081feebcc4265825d017d9af07c7646951 refs/heads/remotebranch f11c723119cd9938e91e1ed5328ef143fb477f15 refs/heads/mybranch f11c723119cd9938e91e1ed5328ef143fb477f15 refs/heads/groups ... There are a few more

Is it the case that mybranch somehow became a remote branch?

Here are the results for this one: $ git log --pretty=oneline mybranch...origin/remotebranch f11c723119cd9938e91e1ed5328ef143fb477f15 Merge branch 'remotebranch' of gitosis@sorry.must.obfuscate.url.com:my-repo into mybranch eb41bd8f4f43d483b4a58bc98386c468bb69173c Ticket #1032 5e76a7c9bce92519b308c031357794904bf0f4a6 Ticket #1038 cu5ceaf670c83f77c1b48e8d31a23456b744f1af0f Ticket #1044

Thank you! -Irene

Michael J Gruber wrote:

ir0s venit, vidit, dixit 21.08.2008 18:53:

It means that the repo "origin" has a branch called mybranch. From the sha1 and the one in your other mail (git ls-remote .) we see that it is identical with your local branch mybranch. It is most certainly the result of a command

git push origin mybranch

which (in the absence of any relevant lines in .git/config) just says that you push that branch into origin with the same name, creating a branch there if there's none. You can get rid of it using "git push origin :mybranch".

What you most probably wanted to do was

git push origin mybranch:remotebranch

which pushes your mybranch into the remotebranch of the origin repo. (You can put this in the config for later pushes, git config remote.origin.push mybranch:remotebranch).

On the other hand:

git push origin

only compares existing branches with matching names, which is why it reported "up to date".

On yet another hand (I'm losing count): When you switch to a tracking branch it is compared to its corresponding remote, and your mybranch and origin/remotebranch clearly differ:

Now, this

from your other e-mail shows quite a zoo of branches you have locally now. Two of them should probably not be there:

refs/remotes/origin/mybranch is the result of fetching/pulling from origin after creating mybranch there by mistake.

refs/heads/remotebranch is a local branch named remotebranch. I don't know where it came from, but git revlog may tell you more.

As a word of comfort: I'm quite new to git and find things confusing sometimes, myself. But in the end I always found out that thinhs are the way they are for a good reason.

You're thinking of "two places" to exchange information for a branch,
which is natural and confused me first, too. But realise that for a sane
workflow you need three:
- remotebranch at the other repo origin,
- your remotes/origin/remotebranch which pulls from origin's repo, and -
your local tracking branch mybranch which pulls or rebases from
remotes/origin/remotebranch at the time of your chosing.

You push from mybranch into the remotebranch of the origin repo. That last one is the one that pushed you off ;) Seriously, that last leg of the workflow triangle is not setup automatically (because you may not have push access).

Cheers, Michael

Sorry, and one more: $ git ls-remote . f11c723119cd9938e91e1ed5328ef143fb477f15 HEAD 138ea08f9680a8def085b793c9cee70eed0e1f3b refs/heads/master 75290a081feebcc4265825d017d9af07c7646951 refs/heads/remotebranch f11c723119cd9938e91e1ed5328ef143fb477f15 refs/heads/mybranch 138ea08f9680a8def085b793c9cee70eed0e1f3b refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 138ea08f9680a8def085b793c9cee70eed0e1f3b refs/remotes/origin/master 75290a081feebcc4265825d017d9af07c7646951 refs/remotes/origin/remotebranch f11c723119cd9938e91e1ed5328ef143fb477f15 refs/remotes/origin/mybranch

Thank you!! -Irene

Michael J Gruber wrote: