Re: Missing branches after clone
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 08:13:19 +0100
- From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Missing branches after clone
On 15/05/2019 02:50, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I believe we are consistent in using the 'rtb' phrase (I've not checked
the hyphen), but for those uninitiated in the duplicitous ways of
distributed versioning systems, they can still think that the phrase is
simply saying that local branch A will be updated to the state of remote
branch B when do a fetch from that remote.
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes:
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.
Yup, I thought we long time ago decided to discourage use of "remote
branch(es)" in our documentation to help unconfuse users and stick
to the term "a remote-tracking branch" (the "remote-tracking" is a
hyphenated one word)?
I.e. they think tracking is a direct linkage via fetch, rather than an
indirect linkage via a local rtb (a concept that has not yet entered
their head, and if if they are aware of the possibility, they haven't
joined the dots). Hence my spelling it out the 'French' way.
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
Yup. FWIW, when I need to refer to the last one, I'd always say "a
branch at the remote" to avoid the confusing term "remote branch".
yes, it's tricky. I've shot my foot off a number of times.