On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 01:38:07PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > I believe the --track setup uses the tracking branches to figure out > > which remote/branch combo to track. To do it without a remote tracking > > branch, you would have to add the lines to your .git/config manually. > > Fascinating, really fascinating. Is there actually _anybody_ who > would not revert to phrases like "I believe" when describing git's > interaction with remote branches? By "I believe", I meant "I am pretty sure this is the way it is implemented, but I have better things to do than read through builtin-branch.c right now, so please don't take this as gospel and go read the code yourself." But the point of --track is that I don't _have_ to care, and that it deduces the correct remote/branch combination itself. > I don't find this particularly logical: origin/something basically > boils down referring to a commit. Really, "origin/something" refers to "refs/remotes/origin/something", which we can deduce from the config to be populated by a particular remote and branch (go read the code). > Maybe git-branch --track should allow referring to remote:branch or > URLs or something directly rather than a remote tracking branch? It could, but at that point, you could just do: git-branch newbranch oldbranch git-config branch.newbranch.remote someremote git-config branch.newbranch.merge remotebranch Perhaps it's slightly more convenient to be able to do git-branch --track someremote:remotebranch newbranch oldbranch but the real convenience of --track is when it deduces those parameters itself. -Peff - 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
