Subject: Tracking of local branches

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:22:38 +0100

Hi there,

me again. In connection with Dscho's recent patch which rang the bell on
tracked branches I noticed that local branches are treated somewhat
inconsistently by git. There are 2 ways to fix it, and I ask you for
your input on which one to choose.

First of all:
The documentation seems to imply that it's okay to follow local
branches, i.e. to have tracked local branches. Specifically, the option
--track allows setting up tracking info (branch.foo.merge) in cases
where it's not set up automatically (it is when you branch off a remote
tracking branch).

If it's not OK to say "git checkout -b newbranch --track local" when
local is a local branch you can stop reading here and tell me to stop
writing...

Now, assuming it's okay to have a local branch being tracked, the
current situation is:

git fetch/pull is okay (respects the setting)
git status/checkout/rev-parse BEL is not (acts as if there is no
tracking info)

I think I have tracked it down (pun intended) to the fact that one sort
of commands looks at the struct member branch->merge, the other at
branch->merge_name. The latter is set for branches which follow
something, the former only for followers of remote branches.

I semi-successfully messed around in remote.c (format_tracking_info(),
stat_tracking_info()) to make it use branch->merge_name rather than
branch->merge. This makes "git status" work as expected ("Your branch
is... severely screwed.") for tracked local branches. (It's messed up
for remote ones but hey it was a first shot; merge[0]->dst is really
needed here I guess.)

Now I could go after sha1_name.c and do the same,

OR

make it so that all branches have their merge member set up, uhm. Any
possible side effects?

What do you think?
Michael