threads / discuss / 6883

2 things about branches

Subject: 2 things about branches

## tl;dr

2 messages between Feb 19, 2007 and Feb 19, 2007.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

Raimund Bauer· Feb 19, 2007, 18:13 UTC · lore

I think it's a good idea to not list remote branches in 'git branch' output per default, but imho we should make an exception for the branch the user is currently on. Currently when I do 'git checkout origin/next' the checkout works fine and I get the warning about the remote branch, but an informational query 'git branch' right after that says

* (no branch)
  master

'git branch -r' also doesn't mark me as being on origin/next. Maybe we could query the remote-branches for a matching ref this case?

And another wish about branches: After a fresh clone of git, my .git/config contains a section

[branch "master"]
        remote = origin
        merge = refs/heads/master

so it's easy to keep the branch updated by just saying 'git pull' when on branch master.

Doing 'git checkout -b next origin/next' gives me my own next-branch, but short of editing .git/config there seems to be no way to get a similar section [branch "next"] ... so I can follow next as easy as master. I'm not sure if there exists a sane default we could use automatically, but maybe a switch to git-checkout to write a config entry would be possible?

Thanks for listening to my rambling

-- 
best regards

  Ray

J. Bruce Fields· Feb 19, 2007, 18:37 UTC · re: Raimund Bauer · lore

Re: 2 things about branches

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:13:59PM +0100, Raimund Bauer wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> I think it's a good idea to not list remote branches in 'git branch'
> output per default, but imho we should make an exception for the branch
> the user is currently on.
> Currently when I do 'git checkout origin/next' the checkout works fine
> and I get the warning about the remote branch, but an informational
> query 'git branch' right after that says
> 
> * (no branch)
>   master
> 
> 'git branch -r' also doesn't mark me as being on origin/next.

That's because you're not really "on" origin/next. Your currently checked-out state happens to be the same as the state that origin/next points at, but that's not quite the same thing. The main difference being that if you commit something, origin/next won't be moved forward to point at the new commit.

> Maybe we could query the remote-branches for a matching ref this case?

If that's what you want you could use e.g.

	git describe --all

--b.