Re: [BUG] inconsistent behavior with --set-upstream vs --set-upstream-to

On Apr 2, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:07:01AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:

quoted

   It looks like git branch --set-upstream-to doesn't function with 1.8.1.3 until I run --set-upstream. Is this a known bug?

No, but I do not think that is exactly what is going on.

quoted

root@fuji-current:/usr/src # git branch --set-upstream-to origin/pjdfstest-onefs pjdfstest-onefs
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'origin/pjdfstest-onefs'.

This is complaining that origin/pjdfstest-onefs does not actually exist
Does it? If the pjdfstest-onefs branch exists on the remote, do you need
to do a "git fetch" to make sure we have a local
refs/remotes/origin/pjdfstest-onefs tracking branch locally?

quoted

root@fuji-current:/usr/src # git branch --set-upstream origin/pjdfstest-onefs pjdfstest-onefs
The --set-upstream flag is deprecated and will be removed. Consider using --track or --set-upstream-to
Branch origin/pjdfstest-onefs set up to track local branch pjdfstest-onefs.

This did _not_ create the remote-tracking branch refs/remotes/origin/pjdfstest-onefs.
It created a new local branch called "origin/pjdfstest-onefs" (i.e.,
refs/heads/origin/pjdfstest-onefs), whose upstream is another local
branch "pjdfstest-onefs". That "backwards" order to the arguments is why
--set-upstream is deprecated; many people have made the same mistake.

quoted

root@fuji-current:/usr/src # git branch --set-upstream-to origin/pjdfstest-onefs pjdfstest-onefs
Branch pjdfstest-onefs set up to track local branch origin/pjdfstest-onefs.

Note how it says "local branch" here; you are not tracking anything at
the origin. You are tracking a local branch that happens to have
"origin/" in the name.

I push the branch to origin/ and then things tend to work, but since I obviously had been doing things wrong what's the correct order of operations for creating a branch and setting the upstream appropriately?

Thanks!
-Garrett

PS I love git as a tool, but I really wish the workflows were simpler or more straightforward, and error messages were clearer. It seems like this would help prevent usage errors like this..