Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Liu Yubao]

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:

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".  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?


BTW: I feel the terminalogy "remote branch" is confused, because I must
synchronize it with `git fetch`. I feel it's better to call it "tracking
branch" // seems will lead to bigger confusion to experienced git users:-(

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Miles Bader]

Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com> writes:
> do most people feel tracking branches useful?

Extremely useful.  I usually keep local branches closely synchronized
with a remote "central" version, and tracking branches make the frequent
push/pull much more convenient.

I often delete the default local "master" branch though, and have only
one local branch per working directory (and like you, use origin/... for
much interbranch synchronization, e.g. rebasing).

-Miles

-- 
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
 you do it."  Mahatma Gandhi

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Liu Yubao]

Miles Bader wrote:
> Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com> writes:
>> do most people feel tracking branches useful?
> 
> Extremely useful.  I usually keep local branches closely synchronized
> with a remote "central" version, and tracking branches make the frequent
> push/pull much more convenient.
> 
In my work flow, I don't keep changes in local branch for long time,
I rebase it regularly and push them to central branch or discard them
if the upstream rejects.

You are right, I realize tracking branches is useful for people who keeps
local changes for long time and track the upstream branch at the same time.

But I guess an auto-rebasing policy is more sensible than auto-merging policy
because I won't get many useless "Merge branch 'xxx' of ..." messages in the
history.

Another problem about tracking branch is `git pull` won't merge tracking branch
with remote branch when the current branch isn't tracking branch, it warns me
"You asked me to pull without telling me which branch you ....". It's not
convenient to checkout tracking branch and execute `git pull` then switch back
to my working branch.

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Miles Bader]

On Oct 29, 2008 6:58pm, Liu Yubao <yubao.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Extremely useful. I usually keep local branches closely synchronized
> > with a remote "central" version, and tracking branches make the frequent
> > push/pull much more convenient.
>
> In my work flow, I don't keep changes in local branch for long time,
> I rebase it regularly and push them to central branch or discard them
> if the upstream rejects.
>
> You are right, I realize tracking branches is useful for people who keeps
> local changes for long time and track the upstream branch at the same
> time.

I don't keep local changes for a long time, I push daily. The local
tracking branch and the corresponding remote branch are basically copies of
each other, in different locations. I also do regularly rebasing, but
against a _different_ remote branch.

There are never merge commits, because all merges done by pull are
fast-forwards. If I were to push changes from multiple working directories
to the central location, I'd have to be more careful about the pull-merging
-- a rebase-on-pull as you suggest would be useful -- but I generally don't.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Andreas Ericsson]

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@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Liu Yubao]

Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Liu Yubao wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
Thank you very much, I didn't know the "--rebase" option, now I learn
the 'branch.<name>.rebase' configuration too by "git help pull".

[...snip...]

> 
> 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
You got it exactly, we are leaf developers and make enhancement mostly,
we don't want the upstream branch full of merging commit for many
not so major changes. I remember keeping linear history is recommended
in git's documentation.

> 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.
I only sync when I have finished my enhancement, I don't like merging
when pull.

Yes, I'd better use "git pull --rebase", "pull" is a wonderful command:
pull = fetch + merge, pull --rebase = fetch + rebase, wow!

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Andreas Ericsson]

Liu Yubao wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> Liu Yubao wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Thank you very much, I didn't know the "--rebase" option, now I learn
> the 'branch.<name>.rebase' configuration too by "git help pull".
> 
> [...snip...]
> 
>> 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
> You got it exactly, we are leaf developers and make enhancement mostly,
> we don't want the upstream branch full of merging commit for many
> not so major changes. I remember keeping linear history is recommended
> in git's documentation.
> 

That should probably be rephrased to "Think before you merge" or something
like that. Keeping history linear provides very little value in itself,
but mindlessly criss-cross-merging makes history difficul to review for
no good reason. Any perceived value of mindless merging is quickly
nullified once one starts looking at "git rerere".

The only time you'll run into problems with non-linear history is when
you're bisecting, and bisection ends up at a merge-commit where all the
merged branhces tips' pre-merge work flawlessly, but the merge-commit
itself introduces breakage by erroneously resolving a conflict, or by
introducing changes of its own (git commit --amend, fe).

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Björn Steinbrink]

On 2008.10.29 16:55:48 +0800, 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)

Actually, origin/master is the "[remote] tracking branch". master is
just a branch that has config settings for "git pull" defaults. ;-)

"Remote branches" are the actual branches on a remote repository.

> 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:
> 
> 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).

git pull --rebase

> I don't want to bother with the tracking branch "master", it's identical
> with "origin/master".  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?

Tracking branches (origin/* etc.) are very useful :-) And branches that
have "git pull" defaults (what you called "tracking branch") are also
useful.

In your case, you probably want:
git checkout -b my-stuff origin/master
git config branch.my-stuff.rebase true

and then you can do:
git pull

Instead of:
git fetch origin
git rebase origin/master

You can also setup branch.autosetuprebase, to automatically get the
rebase setup, so you can skip the call to "git config" above.

And you can just delete the "master" branch if you don't use it. There's
nothing that forces you to keep any branches around that you don't use.
But that doesn't affect the usefulness of tracking branches or branches
that have "git pull" defaults :-)

> BTW: I feel the terminalogy "remote branch" is confused, because I must
> synchronize it with `git fetch`. I feel it's better to call it "tracking
> branch" // seems will lead to bigger confusion to experienced git users:-(

See above, that's already the case ;-)

Björn

Re: Do most people feel tracking branches useful?

[Liu Yubao]

Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> On 2008.10.29 16:55:48 +0800, 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)
> 
> Actually, origin/master is the "[remote] tracking branch". master is
> just a branch that has config settings for "git pull" defaults. ;-)
> 
> "Remote branches" are the actual branches on a remote repository.
> 
Oh, I'm misguided by the --track option, thank you for clarifying it!

> In your case, you probably want:
> git checkout -b my-stuff origin/master
> git config branch.my-stuff.rebase true
> 
> and then you can do:
> git pull
> 
> Instead of:
> git fetch origin
> git rebase origin/master
> 
> You can also setup branch.autosetuprebase, to automatically get the
> rebase setup, so you can skip the call to "git config" above.
A new config setting, git amazes me again @_@

It's great, thanks!
> 
> And you can just delete the "master" branch if you don't use it. There's
> nothing that forces you to keep any branches around that you don't use.
> But that doesn't affect the usefulness of tracking branches or branches
> that have "git pull" defaults :-)
> 
>> BTW: I feel the terminalogy "remote branch" is confused, because I must
>> synchronize it with `git fetch`. I feel it's better to call it "tracking
>> branch" // seems will lead to bigger confusion to experienced git users:-(
> 
> See above, that's already the case ;-)
> 

Got it, --rebase and config.<branch>.rebase and config.autosetuprebase, thank
you again:-)

> Björn
>