Web lists-archives.com

Antw: Re: Missing branches after clone


The confusing part actually is for me:
"git clone" does NOT "Clone a repository into a new directory", but "clone the current branch into a new directory" (IMHO).
So I was surprised that I couldn't merge branches under the same name in the cloned "repository".
Only "git clone --bare" actually seems to clone "the repository".
I think this is very confusing to new users. At least I didn't quite get the reasoning for that.


>>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> schrieb am 14.05.2019 um 12:33 in
Nachricht <0c9ec78a-9245-e1df-7ec6-a5d77d1a5261@xxxxxxx>:
> Hi Ulrich,
> On 14/05/2019 11:12, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>> Then I 
> foundhttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/10312521/how-to-fetch-all-git-branch
> es  which handles the subject...
>>> But still the most common solution there still looks like an ugly hack.
>>> Thus I suggest to improve the man-pages (unless done already)
>> Yeah I expected to see at least some definition of remote-tracking
>> branches (vs local ones) but I didn't see one. Room for improvement.
> Yes, the 'remote tracking branch' name [RTB] is very 'French' in its 
> backwardness (see NATO/OTAN).
> It is a 'branch which tracks a remote', and it is has the 'last time I 
> looked' state of the branch that is on the remote server, which may 
> have, by now, advanced or changed.
> So you need to have the three distinct views in your head of 'My branch, 
> held locally', 'my copy of Their branch, from when I last looked', and 
> 'Their branch, on a remote server, in a state I haven't seen recently'.
> Finding a better name for the "RTB", one with an easier cognitive load 
> for those trying to understand Git, would be an improvement.
> Though there has been a similar issue with 'staging the index'. 
> Ultimately it is a new way of thinking about artefacts (perfect 
> duplicates, no originals, no master, no copies, just verification 
> hashes) so needs new terms and a difficult learning experience.
> -- 
> Philip