El lun, 3 feb 2025 a la(s) 11:08 p.m., D. Ben Knoble
(ben.knoble@gmail.com) escribió:

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 7:28 PM Bram van Oosterhout
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Ahhhh, this thread explains my confusion when, even though git locally
tells me my branch is "up to date", a fetch demonstrates the branch is
not up to date.

Which begs the question: Why does git say: "Your branch is up to date
..." if at best it can say: "Your
branch MIGHT BE up to date with ..."?

Well, the branch _is_ up to date with your remote-tracking branch [1]
origin/main; that doesn't mean the tracking branch is up-to-date with
the repository origin's branch main!

I find it helpful to break the notion for newcomers early on that
origin/main somehow is "equal to" the repository named by origin's
main branch. Git (mostly) only communicates with remote repos when you
fetch, push, or, pull—in other words (and this bit may be more for
Manuel), try to reinforce that things Git knows locally are only local
and not inherently tied to other repositories. Learning this
distributed lesson proves hard in my experience but explains a lot
about the reality of how Git operates.

Thanks for the advice Ben. Very good point. I will introduce the
difference between the origin's main branch and the remote-tracking
branch early in lessons. This is a core part of how Git works.

Still I suggest improving the usability for new generations with a
timestamp of the remote-tracking branch last update. Hopefully in the
future it will be possible!

--
.. manuq ..