feature request: set remote/HEAD with fetch

> Hi,
> 
> this comes after a bit of discussion on #git. The current behaviour of git is
> that when cloning, `refs/remotes/[remote]/HEAD` is set, but if you use `git
> init` and `git remote add`, then you must manually run `git remote set-head -a`
> to arrive at the same state. Having origin/HEAD set is pretty useful for
> scripting and aliases, because you don't need to remember what the current
> project uses (origin/[master|main|trunk|etc]).
> 
> I would propose that running `git fetch` should also update remote/HEAD. In
> case there is a possibility that it is useful in some cases that remote/HEAD is
> actually different from whatever is set in the remote repository as the default
> branch, I think a setting for opt-out would be better, and the default
> behaviour should be essentially always running `set-head -a`.
> 
> My current workaround is an alias:
>     fetchall = !git fetch --all && git remote | xargs -i git remote set-head -a {}
> 
> which works for me, but I think it would be more elegant not to have to do this.

>> My current workaround is an alias:
>>     fetchall = !git fetch --all && git remote | xargs -i git remote set-head -a {}
>> 
>> which works for me, but I think it would be more elegant not to have to do this.
>
> I believe this would be a valuable change.  I know a lot of other users
> want this features as well.  However, I think it needs to be opt-in,
> since there are some cases where you want `git fetch` to specifically
> fetch only certain objects or don't want to modify the refs. For
> example, I know some server-side implementations use `git fetch`
> internally and require refs to be updated in a special way, and they
> would not appreciate extra refs appearing.

> > I would propose that running `git fetch` should also update remote/HEAD. In
> > case there is a possibility that it is useful in some cases that remote/HEAD is
> > actually different from whatever is set in the remote repository as the default
> > branch, I think a setting for opt-out would be better, and the default
> > behaviour should be essentially always running `set-head -a`.
> > 
> > My current workaround is an alias:
> >     fetchall = !git fetch --all && git remote | xargs -i git remote set-head -a {}
> > 
> > which works for me, but I think it would be more elegant not to have to do this.
> 
> I believe this would be a valuable change.  I know a lot of other users
> want this features as well.  However, I think it needs to be opt-in,
> since there are some cases where you want `git fetch` to specifically
> fetch only certain objects or don't want to modify the refs. For
> example, I know some server-side implementations use `git fetch`
> internally and require refs to be updated in a special way, and they
> would not appreciate extra refs appearing.

> There was discussion a while ago that proposed a tri-state config
> option: never update the remote head on fetch, always do so, or add it
> only when missing:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201118091219.3341585-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com/

>
> I think that is a good first step, as we could stop there and leave the
> default at "never" without any compatibility issues (and/or contemplate
> a change in the default as a separate step).
>
> I don't think the patch in that thread is likely to go anywhere at this
> point, but if somebody wanted to pick it up, I think everybody was
> positive on the general direction.

>
> > There was discussion a while ago that proposed a tri-state config
> > option: never update the remote head on fetch, always do so, or add it
> > only when missing:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201118091219.3341585-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com/
>
> Thanks for linking that, I didn't think about searching for old discussion
> before writing ...

> > I think that is a good first step, as we could stop there and leave the
> > default at "never" without any compatibility issues (and/or contemplate
> > a change in the default as a separate step).
> >
> > I don't think the patch in that thread is likely to go anywhere at this
> > point, but if somebody wanted to pick it up, I think everybody was
> > positive on the general direction.
>
> My C skills aren't great (probably an overstatement), but if Felipe or somebody
> else more qualified than me doesn't want to pick this up, I'm willing to give
> it a shot based on the Felipe's patch. It will take some time though :)

>
> Since this leaves you in somewhat of a pickle because you probably should
> not start from those patches, and since you seem to be in the same time
> zone as I am, I'll offer you to pair with you on getting you started. If
> you are interested, please just reply privately.