On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:40, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Joe Abbate <j...@freedomcircle.com> writes: >>> No, it doesn't trash anything. The branch is just an additional >>> "pointer" to 'master' (at that point in time). I recommend taking a >>> look at this: >> >>> http://progit.org/book/ch3-5.html >> >> Yes, I was reading exactly that before posting. It talks about pushing >> a branch you've created locally, and it talks about what happens when >> others pull that down, and it's about as clear as mud w/r/t how the >> original pusher sees the remote branch. What I want is to end up >> with my local branch tracking the remote branch in the same way as if >> I'd not been the branch creator. Preferably without having to do >> anything as ugly as delete the branch, or re-clone, or manually hack >> config files. This has got to be a use case that the git authors >> have heard of before... > > I think you need the -u parameter to "git push". (Haven't tested, though)
Yeah. I *think* the right incantation might be: git branch REL9_1_STABLE git push -u origin REL9_1_STABLE Actually, creating the branch is trivial. I do that all the time. What I'm less sure about is how you get the push configuration set up right. But I think the above might do it. I'd read .git/config afterward just to see if it looks sane. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
