On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 7:28 PM Bram van Oosterhout <adriaanbram0712@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ahhhh, this thread explains my confusion when, even though git locally > tells me my branch is "up to date", a fetch demonstrates the branch is > not up to date. > > Which begs the question: Why does git say: "Your branch is up to date > ..." if at best it can say: "Your > branch MIGHT BE up to date with ..."? Well, the branch _is_ up to date with your remote-tracking branch [1] origin/main; that doesn't mean the tracking branch is up-to-date with the repository origin's branch main! I find it helpful to break the notion for newcomers early on that origin/main somehow is "equal to" the repository named by origin's main branch. Git (mostly) only communicates with remote repos when you fetch, push, or, pull—in other words (and this bit may be more for Manuel), try to reinforce that things Git knows locally are only local and not inherently tied to other repositories. Learning this distributed lesson proves hard in my experience but explains a lot about the reality of how Git operates. Exceptions to the "remote communication" rule I can think of that probably don't need to clutter things for beginners: - git-maintenance has pre-fetching as a default task - git ls-remote lists remote refs by communicating with the remote > I have learned not to rely on the message and come to expect > (sometimes nasty) surprises when I return to a project after a few > months, > > Bram And thus `git fetch [--all]` because a part of your typical workflow, or something like `git pull --rebase [origin [main]]` before pushing. [1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary#Documentation/gitglossary.txt-aiddefremotetrackingbrancharemote-trackingbranch -- D. Ben Knoble
