Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think the exact same confusion exists. I told git to update 'next' > from origin, but it didn't touch refs/remotes/origin/next. Except that you didn't tell git to *update* the remote tracking branch for 'next'; you merely told it to fetch 'next' at the remote. > ... But I suspect that is not how many git users think of it. I am inclined to agree that it might be the case; see my other message in this thread. > We've discussed this before, of course: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127163/focus=127215 Yes, you brought up the "remote state as of the time I told git to record it is a precious piece of information" issue, and I share the reasoning, hence I am somewhat torn. We might be better off biting the bullet and do the "rewrite a command line colon-less refspec using a matching configured refspec iff exists" and defer the history of remote tracking branches to its reflog in the longer term. -- 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