From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: Terminology question about remote branches. Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:41 +0200 Message-ID: <85y7grfkbe.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <854pjfin68.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85tzrfh3yg.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <8c5c35580708040607ya186edcg89fbc90587b64d68@mail.gmail.com> <85k5sbh129.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <8c5c35580708040703w44781498t7396588a3f8c81c8@mail.gmail.com> <854pjfgzit.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Jeff King" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Lars Hjemli" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 04 16:25:49 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IHKZf-0002V8-Nh for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761915AbXHDOZp (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:25:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760415AbXHDOZo (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:25:44 -0400 Received: from mail-in-02.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.42]:38750 "EHLO mail-in-02.arcor-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759767AbXHDOZo (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:25:44 -0400 Received: from mail-in-09-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-09-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.21]) by mail-in-02.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E52E27ED9; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:25:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.52]) by mail-in-09-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E90528EE1B; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:25:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-010-037.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.10.37]) by mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93668C465; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:25:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 037941C4F932; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:25:41 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <854pjfgzit.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat\, 04 Aug 2007 16\:11\:54 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.1/3854/Sat Aug 4 06:49:48 2007 on mail-in-12.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > "Lars Hjemli" writes: > >>> > Was this helpful? >> >> Talking to myself: obviously not > > Disagree. "Does this answer all questions and makes git's behavior > perfectly transparent" -- no. But let's not confuse "magical" with > "helpful" here. Ok, let's have another go. Maybe I have understood more as compared with last time. git-branch/git-commit -b creates and manages local branches, nothing else. Local branches' defining feature is that they have a branch head I can move around myself. Then there are non-local branches. Their defining feature is that they have no locally moving branch head and _must_ track a remote branch. But local branches _also_ can track the progress/head of a remote branch. Since they have a locally moving branch head, this will often lead to merge conflicts which must be resolved. So this is more or less what I understand now. There really is no difference between "tracking" and "following" as I thought previously. It is just that a local branch which happens to track a remote branch is basically a remote tracking branch with a head of its own. Which means it can get merge conflicts. Can we get merge conflicts with a remote tracking branch, too? Namely when the remote branch messed with its history, rebased/reverted stuff? So that the real difference between a local and a remote tracking branch is not that the latter tracks a remote branch (the former can do that as well), but that the latter has no local branch head and that saves us a lot (but not necessary all) merge conflicts? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum