Re: New way of tracking remote branches -- question

["Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>]

On 1/6/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> You are talking about the separate remote layout "git clone"
> creates, and talking about the fact that there is nothing in
> refs/heads/ except master while refs/remotes/origin/ mirrors
> what the remote side has faithfully, aren't you?
>
> If that is the case, I can explain.  It is a good topic to talk
> about.

It's confusing me too ;-) though I think I'm getting to understand it.
Still more comfortable with the cogito style, personally. The only
thing I see as a clear improvement in git "remotes" is that I can
fetch a bundle of heads for review. And that it can track heads that
rewind. All the magic that happens if you have multiple pull lines is
a bit scary, the kind of thing that should be disallowed or use a
different syntax.

One aspect that I am getting used to, but I still consider slightly
bogus is that as we have added a layer of indirection, what used to
point to a specific remote branch now points to a bundle or remotes
heads.

It is quite disconcerting to say git-pull origin, and see that pu is
being pulled in. And  fortunately I'm tracking repos that don't have
an 'origin' head. Otherwise I'd get origin/origin. :-(

[reading on now...]



martin