Subject: Re: Document clone of clone loosing branches?

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:18:08 -0700

Vaclav Hanzl <[email-masked]> writes:

> I am not sure that the term 'branch' can be reasonably expected to
> mean 'regular branch' unless specified otherwise. For example, 'man
> git' says:
>
>        git-branch(1)
>           List, create, or delete branches.
>
> It can also list remote-tracking branches, cannot it? Or:
>
>        git-show-branch(1)
>           Show branches and their commits.
>
> Can also show remote-tracking branches, cannot it?

These fall into "quibbling" category, but that judgement can only be made
by people who know the history.

Updates to glossary and other introductory documents might be necessary.
For example, the entry about "tracking branch" in the glossary still talks
about the ancient convention of copying 'master' to 'origin' as a regular
branch:

    [[def_tracking_branch]]tracking branch::
            A regular git <<def_branch,branch>> that is used to follow changes from
            another <<def_repository,repository>>. A tracking
            branch should not contain direct modifications or have local commits
            made to it. A tracking branch can usually be
            identified as the right-hand-side <<def_ref,ref>> in a Pull:
            <<def_refspec,refspec>>.

This does _not_ reflect post v1.3.0 reality at all.  No git more recent
than Apr 2006 has used a "regular git branch" for tracking.

It probably is enough to say:

        A ref that is used to follow changes from another repository.
	In modern git, they are found in `refs/remotes/` hierarchy.

because you cannot add "direct modifications or have local commits" to
them anymore.