From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: git-branch silently ignores --track on local branches Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:23:38 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <20071110174557.GC1036@blorf.net> <7vfxzelz5b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Wayne Davison , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 11 20:24:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IrIQ0-0003j8-8o for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:24:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755873AbXKKTXx (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:23:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755874AbXKKTXx (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:23:53 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:41992 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755873AbXKKTXw (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:23:52 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2007 19:23:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO openvpn-client) [138.251.11.103] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 11 Nov 2007 20:23:50 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+LN0Qi3emLA2PmaGPHQmOBjJ3amrrY2fYJ3NoFG+ NoVU6046d6menx X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vfxzelz5b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Wayne Davison writes: > > > ... Is there > > a problem with local branches being supported when explicitly > > requested? > > Maybe this one? > > commit 6f084a56fcb3543d88d252bb49c1d2bbf2bd0cf3 > Author: Johannes Schindelin > Date: Tue Jul 10 18:50:44 2007 +0100 > > branch --track: code cleanup and saner handling of local branches > > This patch cleans up some complicated code, and replaces it with a > cleaner version, using code from remote.[ch], which got extended a > little in the process. This also enables us to fix two cases: > > The earlier "fix" to setup tracking only when the original ref started > with "refs/remotes" is wrong. You are absolutely allowed to use a > separate layout for your tracking branches. The correct fix, of course, > is to set up tracking information only when there is a matching > remote..fetch line containing a colon. > > Another corner case was not handled properly. If two remotes write to > the original ref, just warn the user and do not set up tracking. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > > As a local branch does not have to be "fetched", the restriction > on "remote..fetch" is sort of pointless. IIRC it was you, Junio, who complained first that the local branches have tracking set up. > Also why remote..fetch needs a colon, I begin to wonder. You can > be keep fetching and merging from the same branch of the same remote > without keeping a remote tracking branch for that, but the above > "correct fix" forbids that. The point here was to find out what to track when we do a "git branch --track ". So we definitely only want to find those remotes that fetch to a certain tracking branch. Sure, you can set up branch..merge to a branch that is not tracked. But git cannot find out which one it is in the command "branch". > Dscho, what were we smoking when we made this change? Dude, I, uh, I think I, uh, don't remember. Peace. Ciao, Dscho