Matthieu Moy <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Corentin BOMPARD <corentin.bompard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Add the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch > which lets the user set the upstream configuration > (branch.<current-branch-name>.merge and > branch.<current-branch-name>.remote) for the current branch. > > A typical use-case is: > > git clone http://example.com/my-public-fork > git remote add main http://example.com/project-main-repo > git pull --set-upstream main master > > or, instead of the last line: > > git fetch --set-upstream main master > git merge # or git rebase > > This functionality is analog to push --set-upstream. I was writing a one-paragraph summary for this topic, for the "What's cooking" report, and here is what I have: "git fetch" learned "--set-upstream" option to help those who first clone from a forked repository they intend to push to, add the true upstream via "git remote add" and then "git fetch" from it. After describing it like so, I cannot shake the feeling that the workflow this intends to support feels somewhat backwards and suboptimal. - Unless you rely on server-side "fork" like GitHub does, you would first clone from the upstream, and then push to your "fork". The flow whose first step is to clone from your "fork", not from the true upstream, feels backwards (cloning from upstream then adding your fork as a secondary may be more natural, without need for the complexity of --set-upstream to pull/fetch/push, no?). - The second step adds the true upstream using "git remote", and at that point, in your mind you are quite clear that you want to pull from there (and push to your own fork). Not having the "I am adding this new remote; from now on, it is my upstream" feature at this step, and instead having to say that with your first "git pull", feels backwards. If this feature were instead added to "git remote", then the last step in your example does not even have to say "main" (and no need for this new option), does it?
