On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 12:40:50PM -0400, Sean wrote: > To me it's yet another example of bad UI design in Git. Git already > had remote-tracking branches, which conceptually were relatively easy > to explain. Instead of leveraging this foundation, and adding the > ability for local branches to pick a default remote-tracking branch > to use for merging, Git instead implemented direct remote tracking > from local branches. After having read the thread Jeff mentioned > earlier i'm still at a loss as to how this decision was justified. To be fair, the default remote-tracking branch stuff predates the thread I pointed you to. But I do agree it makes the system that much more confusing to have it this way. There is a clash between users with different workflows here, I think. For example, I almost _never_ run git-pull, but instead always fetch, inspect, and then merge from a tracking branch. So I think of tracking branches as a first-class item. But I suspect Linus doesn't use tracking branches at all, since he pulls directly from a variety of different repositories. -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
