Martin Nordholts <enselic@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > - is omitted, the current branch is assumed. > + is omitted, the current branch is assumed. Note that checking > + out a remote branch does not make it the current branch. If a > + remote branch is desired as start-point it must be an explicity > + specified. The first new sentence says $ git checkout origin/next does not mean you will be _on_ the remote branch, 'next' you got from me in this example. By definition you cannot be on anything but a local branch, so the sentence is correct. But "it" in the second new sentence is unclear. You probably wanted to answer "If I wanted to have _my own 'next' branch_ that tracks 'next' from the remote, what should I do?" And the answer would be either $ git checkout -t -b next origin/next or its shorthand invented by Dscho which is $ git checkout -t origin/next Now, is "it must be (an) explicit(l)y specified" a correct instruction to lead the readers to these solutions? -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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