Liu Yubao wrote:
Hi,
I often feel tracking branches are useless to me, because there are remote
branches and I work on my private branch in most time.
repos
|
|-- my (private branch, do my dirty work)
|-- master (tracking branch)
|-- origin/master (remote branch)
To avoid conflict when execute `git pull` and make the history linear, I work
on branch "my" instead of "master". Here is my work flow:
Use "git fetch" instead of "git pull" and you won't need the 'my' branch.
If you use "git pull --rebase" you won't need to bother at all.
1) use `git fetch` or `git remote update` to synchronize branch "origin/master"
with branch "master" in remote repository;
2) create a new private branch to polish my commits and rebase it against
"origin/master";
3) at last push this new branch to the remote repository or ask the upstream
developer to fetch it(no `git pull` because we want history as linear as possible).
I don't want to bother with the tracking branch "master", it's identical
with "origin/master".
Not unless you "git pull" when there's only fast-forward changes.
Because `git checkout -b xxx <remote_branch>`
will create a tracking branch "xxx" by default, so my question is:
do most people feel tracking branches useful?
I use them all the time. They're immensely useful to me.
I can't understand why you're working so hard for a linear history, but perhaps
that's just an effect of only having leaf developers. I also can't understand
why you'd want to sync with upstream at all if you're just working on a single
feature/bugfix at the time, since you'd probably be better off by just completing
that single feature in your own time and doing "git pull --rebase && git push"
when you're done.
--
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
