Re: Terminology question about remote branches.

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 12:56:49PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
>
>> beyond my imagination that I could have a local following/automerging
>> branch that is directly referring to a branch in a remote repo, without
>> have a remote-tracking branch.
>>
>> How could I create such a setup in the first place?
>>
>>     git branch --track something origin/something
>>     git checkout --track -b something origin/something
>>
>> are obvious, but what to say if I don't have origin/something?
>
> I believe the --track setup uses the tracking branches to figure out
> which remote/branch combo to track. To do it without a remote tracking
> branch, you would have to add the lines to your .git/config manually.

Fascinating, really fascinating.  Is there actually _anybody_ who
would not revert to phrases like "I believe" when describing git's
interaction with remote branches?

I don't find this particularly logical: origin/something basically
boils down referring to a commit.

Maybe git-branch --track should allow referring to remote:branch or
URLs or something directly rather than a remote tracking branch?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum