Thore Husfeldt wrote: > On 23 Oct 2010, at 18:31, Matthieu Moy wrote: >> +In this case, "origin" is called a remote repository, or "remote" for >> +short. The branches of this repository are called "remote branches" >> +from our point of view, and Git will maintain a copy of these >> +branches, called "remote-tracking branches" in the local repository. > > No. Git does not âmaintain a copy of [the remote] branchesâ. Itâs exactly one > of the pitfalls I fell into: that Git, automagically, puts the *current* > state of the remote branch into remote/branchname, or at least [...] > I realise that it would be more constructive for me to suggest a concrete > improvement, but Iâm not quite there yet. Yes, it really would. Or could you try to figure out what exactly is confusing in the wording (for example by giving an interpretation like [do a good job at] maintain[ing] a copy of the branches to indicate which part was confusing)? As it is, I'm a little confused. At least according to one interpretation, Git does maintain a copy of the remote branches. This is not tracking like a Basset hound, and it is not maintaining a copy like cron running rsync every 5 minutes, but git tracks remote branches like a human and maintains a copy like a human running rsync whenever she finds time to get around to it. Of course, the wording can be improved. A nice side-effect of clear suggestions intended to disambiguate one aspect is that they tend to result in the text becoming clearer in other ways at the same time. -- 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