Steffen Prohaska wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote:
Sergei Organov <osv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Sergei Organov wrote:
I want to get rid of origin/pu remote tracking branch. What do I do?
I RTFM git-branch. What does it suggest?
git branch -d -r origin/pu
So far so good. However, it doesn't seem to work in practice:
[...]
$ git branch -d -r origin/pu
Deleted remote branch origin/pu.
$ git remote show origin
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branch(es) merged with 'git pull' while on branch master
master
New remote branches (next fetch will store in remotes/origin)
pu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What???
Tracked remote branches
html maint man master next todo
Check out what do you have in .git/config file, in the
[remote "origin"] section. Most probably (if you cloned this
repository using new enough git) you have wildcard refspec there,
which means that git would pick all new branches when
fetching / pulling from given repository.
Sure, I've cloned git.git using rather recent git, so .git/config has:
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
[...]
Isn't "git branch -d -r" supposed to do whatever magic is required to
get rid of the remote branch? Currently it seems like a bug introduced
by addition of wildcards refspecs, right?
No, the '-r' part translates 'pu' into 'refs/remotes/origin/pu', and
the '-d' option removes branch locally. It is meant I think to remove
tracking of branches which were dropped in remote, as I think that
wildcard refspec does create new branches, but do not delete dropped
branches.
"git remote prune origin" should be used to clean up stale
remote-tracking branches.
BTW, what's the right name for this type of branch.
I found "tracking branch", "remote tracking branch", and
"remote-tracking branch" in the manual. The glossary only
mentions "tracking branch". Or is it a "tracked remote branch"
as the output of "git remote show" suggests. I remember,
there was a lengthy discussion on this issue. Does someone
remember the conclusion?
It seems we agreed to disagree. However, a "tracked remote branch"
is definitely not in your local repo. I think remote-tracking branch
grammatically is the most correct, as that's the only non-ambiguous
form (remote tracking branch might mean "remote tracking-branch" or
"remote-tracking branch"). It's also the only form that works when
used with "local" in front of it. "Tracked remote branch" will
always be a "remote branch", no matter how you prefix it.
I hate that part of git nomenclature with a passion. It's ambiguous
at best and, as a consequence, downright wrong for some uses.
So I'm not sure if it is a bug, misfeature or a feature.
It doesn't make sense to delete remote-tracking branches
locally if they are still present at the remote. The main
purpose of a remote-tracking branch is to be identical to the
real remote branch.
Yes, but it does make sense to say "I no longer want to track that
remote branch". If that should be implied by the user deleting its
local counterpart is, I think, what this discussion is about.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
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
