As I can see, both git --track and --set-upstream-to modify a branch so it becames a tracking (or upstream) branch. But where is a subtle differenc
$ git checkout foo -b
$ git branch --track origin/retarget
The first two commands instruct git to:
origin/retarget" (very bad idea, as it is named as a remote tracking branch", while it is actually a simple local branch with a '/' in its name)foo", another local branch)See git branch
--track
When creating a new branch, set up
branch.<name>.remoteandbranch.<name>.mergeconfiguration entries to mark the start-point branch as "upstream" from the new branch.
You would use track when you create a branch starting from a remote tracking one.
In other word, your first example isn't how you would use --track.
This would work better:
git checkout -b foo --track origin/retarget
As for the difference between --track and --set-upstream-to:
--set-upstream-to
If specified branch does not exist yet or if
--forcehas been given, acts exactly like--track.
Otherwise sets up configuration like--trackwould when creating the branch, except that where branch points to is not changed.
Let's assume that you have one master branch which is checked out. Now when you do a
$ git branch --track someBranch
you will create a new branch named someBranch which changes will be tracked according to the master branch. But this branch has no remote branch set. Thus you see remote = . in the git config.
Now that someBranch is tracked it means that changes will appear in git status and git branch -v as if a remote exists.
For example if you make a commit on someBranch git will tell you that you are 1 ahead when you do a git branch -v or when you do a git status it shows you
Your branch is ahead of 'master' by 1 commit.
And this is the interessting part. The branch is tracked and git shows you that it is 1 commit ahead of master (the branch that was checked out when you created someBranch)