set-upstream for existing branch...?

Is there a convenient, intuitive, way to set (or change) @{upstream} for the current branch, without doing anything else...?

Thanks,

-Miles

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

$ git branch <current_branch> --set-upstream <new_upstream>

But note that this is deceptive: what's important is the relative positions of <current_branch> and <new_upstream> on the command-line, and they must be in that order. It doesn't (currently) matter where you place the --set-upstream.

I've got it on my todo list to make --set-upstream take <new_upstream> as its argument so that you can just say:

$ git branch --set-upstream <new_upstream>

j.

Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> writes:

Thanks, the latter sounds nice, but for now the former is good for an alias...

-miles

Hmm, on a related note, is there an obvious way to _show_ the current branch's upstream...?

[I mean, which just prints out "origin/master" or whatever...]

Thanks,

-miles

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

git rev-parse --abbrev-ref @{u}

j.

Miles Bader venit, vidit, dixit 17.02.2011 08:24:

git for-each-ref --format="%(upstream)" $(git symbolic-ref HEAD)

I can't come up with a better way of expanding @{u} without resolving the resulting refname to a SHA1. You could do

git name-rev @{u}

or similar with "describe", but that's really backwards - it first expands @{u} to a refname, then to a SHA1, and then tries to describe that SHA1 by a refname...

BTW: Please don't change "--set-upstream" light-heartedly and isolated
from other stuff. We need more consistency wrt. subcommands vs. options
vs. options taking parameters. So an incompatible change should be part
of a bigger picture. This requires some research about our current
usage, pitfalls, and the best way forward (breaking as little as
possible and achieving as much as possible).

Michael

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:

what about

    git branch -vv

it will show all local branches with their upstream plus behind/ahead numbers

cheers, daniel

knittl venit, vidit, dixit 17.02.2011 10:25:

That's a very nice and useful output, but my impression was that Miles was more interested in one branch (the current one), and I think Jay gave the most direct solution. While it does go through the resolve-describe-circle (compared to for-each-ref) it should still be efficient.

Michael