Dear diary, on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:40:30AM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> said that... > Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > If your current branch would really be a remote branch and you simply > > git-fetched, your HEAD would change but not your working tree, and at > > that moment things would become very confusing. Cogito would start > > showing nonsensical stuff for cg-status and cg-diff (as well as > > git-diff-tree HEAD output), but your index would at least still be > > correct so I'm not sure how much attention do tools like git-diff pay to > > it, the level of messup would be proportional to that. > > People want to leave tracking branches checked out, especially > when they are not developers but are "update to the latest and > compile the bleeding edge" types. Support for that mode of > operation was invented long time ago and git-pull knows about > it, and the idea was ported to git-cvsimport recently. Why can't such people just have two branches, _especially_ if they are the "update to the latest and compile the bleeding edge" types? (Therefore well not likely to be familiar with the Git branching model at all.) I mean, sure, it's Core Git so the extra flexibility is nice. But I now wonder, can you think of any plausible workflow where having one branch instead of two would be an advantage? Waah, cg-log git-fetch.sh, /update-head just showed me the change in git-fetch-script from last August, with no extra work for me. The big rename barrier annoyances finally gone forever! -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think I have forgotten this before. - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html