Hi! The confusing part actually is for me: "git clone" does NOT "Clone a repository into a new directory", but "clone the current branch into a new directory" (IMHO). So I was surprised that I couldn't merge branches under the same name in the cloned "repository". Only "git clone --bare" actually seems to clone "the repository". I think this is very confusing to new users. At least I didn't quite get the reasoning for that. Regards, Ulrich >>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> schrieb am 14.05.2019 um 12:33 in Nachricht <0c9ec78a-9245-e1df-7ec6-a5d77d1a5261@xxxxxxx>: > Hi Ulrich, > On 14/05/2019 11:12, Duy Nguyen wrote: >>> Then I > foundhttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/10312521/how-to-fetch-all-git-branch > es which handles the subject... >>> But still the most common solution there still looks like an ugly hack. >>> Thus I suggest to improve the man-pages (unless done already) >> Yeah I expected to see at least some definition of remote-tracking >> branches (vs local ones) but I didn't see one. Room for improvement. > Yes, the 'remote tracking branch' name [RTB] is very 'French' in its > backwardness (see NATO/OTAN). > > It is a 'branch which tracks a remote', and it is has the 'last time I > looked' state of the branch that is on the remote server, which may > have, by now, advanced or changed. > > So you need to have the three distinct views in your head of 'My branch, > held locally', 'my copy of Their branch, from when I last looked', and > 'Their branch, on a remote server, in a state I haven't seen recently'. > > Finding a better name for the "RTB", one with an easier cognitive load > for those trying to understand Git, would be an improvement. > > Though there has been a similar issue with 'staging the index'. > Ultimately it is a new way of thinking about artefacts (perfect > duplicates, no originals, no master, no copies, just verification > hashes) so needs new terms and a difficult learning experience. > -- > Philip
