Re: git branch rename and git config q

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:

> I never used branch.*.rebase configuration. By the way, git-pull and git-config
> man pages a full of warnings related to this feature. I assume that source of
> configuration is
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#keeping-local-changes-current-with-Org-mode-development
>

+1. I find most 'automatic' git configurations more problematic and
dangerous than necessary. With a version control system, I think you
want maximum manual control. 

With regards to the issues Samual is running into, I would say take a
leaf from the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy and relax. This can
actually be a lot simpler than you realise. On some levels, I think you
may be over thinking it. 

When you do a git fetch it will pull down the new branch definitions for
you and you will be able to use them as you would any branch name to do
things like rebase your local branch against that branch. 

You can remove old remote definitions as outlined by Maxin. You can also
just ignore them. You will probably want to update your automatic rebase
configuration, but of course, as the old remotes are no longer being
used, it probably won't have any impact even if you just leave it in
place.  You will just need to do the rebasing manually, which I think is
a much better idea anyway. 

The only slight complication with the new branch names can arise if you
do push data up to those branches. Do you need to do that or is your use
case just as a consumer i.e. do you have write permission on the remote
org git repository at savannah? If you don't need to push your changes
back up, then you don't need to link your local branches with the remote
branches. 

BTW I think Github has some pretty decent documentation about all of
this and some good examples on how you connect a local branch to a
remote one. You might find what they have and their examples useful.