Re: Git terminology: remote, add, track, stage, etc.

Thore Husfeldt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Branch bobsstuff set up to track remote branch master from bob.

(By the way, I think “remote branch” is useful and correct, here.)

But "track" should be "upstream" here to be consistant with
"--set-upstream". Maybe:

Remote branch master from bob set as upstream for bobsstuff.

?

Let me see if I can use the proposed terminology:

1. bob/master *tracks* master.
2. bob/master is a remote-tracking branch

I do like the dash between remote and tracking.

This is roughly the current terminology, but as you pointed out, it's
not used consistantly in the doc.

3. master is a remote branch
4. bob/master has been marked as "upstream" from bobsstuff 

That's my understanding too.

(no time for more detailed answer, sorry)

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:34 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Thore Husfeldt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Let me see if I can use the proposed terminology:

1. bob/master *tracks* master.
2. bob/master is a remote-tracking branch

I do like the dash between remote and tracking.

This is roughly the current terminology, but as you pointed out, it's
not used consistantly in the doc.

The only way in which "tracking" is not consistent is in that many
people seem to be insisting that one cannot apply the idiom of tracking
to ALL kinds of tracking that git does. Git tracks changes in CONTENT.
It matters not where that content is. It does not track files, branches,
nor repositories--those are mere containers of CONTENT that git tracks
the changes of.
Perhaps we need to make this more explicit in the documentation?

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59