And... Just after I sent that email I thought "is that right? I'd better check", and no it isn't right. So to answer my own question..... From: Kerry, Richard Sent: 12 March 2021 15:37 > >However, I'm now not able to write the results back to BitBucket. I've used "remote add" to add the reference to the existing remote >repo where L2 came from. But when I try "git push origin" it tells me : > >fatal: The current branch master has no upstream branch. >To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use > git push --set-upstream origin master > >Why does it do that? >If I'm setting up a more conventional local repo to push to a remote it is usually sufficient to do "git remote add origin" and it'll then >push (ie one set-up using a simple fast-import from cvs2git, with the instance on the remote server created there). >Presumably my current position of generating the local repo from scratch from multiple imports means it's missing something vital. >What might it be missing? Is it just that it is aware that it did not originate from a fetch and the above set-upstream is the best way to >fix it? But other repos that originate from CVS exports are happy with just "remote add". >Does git know that the repo of the same name on the remote server is somehow "different" from my hand-crafted repo? I misremembered the details of adding a new item to BitBucket and in that case the required push command does include "-u", which is "--set-upstream". So, sorry for the noise there. So I've done that and now I'm getting, as possibly expected, a message from BB about it containing work that I don't have locally. I'll get back onto that next week. Again presumably a side-effect of building a repo from scratch that doesn't really share history with the remote one. Regards, Richard.
