The first push should be a:
git push -u origin branchname
That would make sure:
- your local branch has a remote tracking branch of the same name referring an upstream branch in your remote repo '
origin', - this is compliant with the default push policy '
simple'
Any future git push will, with that default policy, only push the current branch, and only if that branch has an upstream branch with the same name.
that avoid pushing all matching branches (previous default policy), where tons of test branches were pushed even though they aren't ready to be visible on the upstream repo.
The first push should be a:
git push -u origin branchname
That would make sure:
- your local branch has a remote tracking branch of the same name referring an upstream branch in your remote repo '
origin', - this is compliant with the default push policy '
simple'
Any future git push will, with that default policy, only push the current branch, and only if that branch has an upstream branch with the same name.
that avoid pushing all matching branches (previous default policy), where tons of test branches were pushed even though they aren't ready to be visible on the upstream repo.
First, you need to create your branch locally
git checkout -b your_branch
After that, you can work locally in your branch, when you are ready to share the branch, push it. The next command push the branch to the remote repository origin and tracks it
git push -u origin your_branch
Your Teammates/colleagues can push to your branch by doing commits and then push explicitly
... work ...
git commit
... work ...
git commit
git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/your_branch
Can't push branch into origin main
github - What is "git remote add ..." and "git push origin master"? - Stack Overflow
What's the meaning of 'origin' in 'git push origin master' - Stack Overflow
"git push origin" problem
Videos
Hello,
I've made a repo in which I have just two branches:
-
MAIN
-
NPM
I do all my work on NPM, and I want to push directly to my MAIN branch once I'm satisfied with the work. Once I do git push origin main from the NPM branch, it just tells me that "Everything up-to-date", whereas when I go back to my MAIN branch, all the changes that I've done were not appended (I've already add, commited).
Seems as if it's still not pushing. When I go into my repo, NPM isn't there as well.
Git is like Unix. It is user-friendly, but it is picky about its friends. It's about as powerful and as user-friendly as a shell pipeline.
That being said, once you understand its paradigms and concepts, it has the same Zenlike clarity that I've come to expect from Unix command-line tools. You should consider taking some time off to read one of the many good Git tutorials available online. The Pro Git book is a good place to start.
To answer your first question.
What is
git remote add ...?As you probably know, Git is a distributed version control system. Most operations are done locally. To communicate with the outside world, Git uses what are called "remotes". These are repositories other than the one on your local disk which you can push your changes into (so that other people can see them) or pull from (so that you can get others changes). The command
git remote add origin [email protected]:peter/first_app.gitcreates a new remote calledoriginlocated at[email protected]:peter/first_app.git. Once you do this, in your push commands, you can push to origin instead of typing out the whole URL.What is
git push origin master?This is a command that says "push the commits in the local branch named master to the remote named origin". Once this is executed, all the stuff that you last synchronised with origin will be sent to the remote repository and other people will be able to see them there.
Now about transports (i.e., what git://) means. Remote repository URLs can be of many types (file://, https://, etc.). Git simply relies on the authentication mechanism provided by the transport to take care of permissions and stuff. This means that for file:// URLs, it will be Unix file permissions, etc. The git:// scheme is asking Git to use its own internal transport protocol, which is optimised for sending Git changesets around. As for the exact URL, it's the way it is because of the way GitHub has set up its Git server.
Now the verbosity. The command you've typed is the general one. It's possible to tell Git something like "the branch called master over here is local mirror of the branch called foo on the remote called bar". In Git speak, this means that master tracks bar/foo. When you clone for the first time, you will get a branch called master and a remote called origin (where you cloned from) with the local master set to track the master on origin.
Once this is set up, you can simply say git push and it'll do it. The longer command is available in case you need it (e.g., git push might push to the official public repository and git push review master can be used to push to a separate remote which your team uses to review code). You can set your branch to be a tracking branch using the --set-upstream option of the git branch command.
I've felt that Git (unlike most other applications I've used) is better understood from the inside out. Once you understand how data is stored and maintained inside the repository, the commands and what they do become crystal clear. I do agree with you that there's some elitism amongst many Git users, but I also found that with Unix users once upon a time, and it was worth ploughing past them to learn the system. Good luck!
Update: note that the currently accepted answer perpetuates a common misunderstanding about the behaviour of git push, which hasn't been corrected despite a comment pointing it out.
Your summary of what remotes are - like a nickname for the URL of a repository - is correct.
So why does the URL not git://[email protected]/peter/first_app.git, but in the other syntax -- what syntax is it? Why must it end with .git? I tried not using .git at the end and it works too. If not .git, what else can it be? The git at the beginner seems to be a user account on the Git server?
The two URLs that you've mentioned indicate that two different transport protocols should be used. The one beginning with git:// is for the Git protocol, which is usually only used for read-only access to repositories. The other one, [email protected]:peter/first_app.git, is one of the different ways of specifying access to a repository over SSH - this is the "scp-style syntax" described in the documentation. That the username in the scp-style syntax is git is because of the way that GitHub deals with identifying users - essentially that username is ignored, and the user is identified based on the SSH key-pair that they used to authenticate.
As for the verbosity of git push origin master, you've noticed that after the first push, you can then just do git push. This is because of a series of difficult-to-remember-but-generally-helpful defaults :)
- If no remote is specified, the remote configured for the current branch (in
remote.master.urlin your case) is used. If that's not set up, thenoriginis used. - If there's no "refspec" (e.g.
master,master:my-experiment, etc.) specified, then Git defaults to pushing every local branch that has the same name as a branch on the remote. If you just have a branch calledmasterin common between your repository and the remote one, that'll be the same as pushing yourmasterto the remotemaster.
Personally, since I tend to have many topic branches (and often several remotes) I always use the form:
git push origin master
... to avoid accidentally pushing other branches.
In reply to your comments on one of the other answers, it sounds to me as if are learning about Git in a top-down way very effectively - you've discovered that the defaults work, and your question is asking about why ;) To be more serious, Git can be used essentially as simply as SVN, but knowing a bit about remotes and branches means you can use it much more flexibly and this can really change the way you work for the better.
Your remark about a semester course makes me think of something Scott Chacon said in a podcast interview - students are taught about all kinds of basic tools in computer science and software engineering, but very rarely version control. Distributed version control systems such as Git and Mercurial are now so important, and so flexible, that it would be worth teaching courses on them to give people a good grounding.
My view is that with git, this learning curve is absolutely worth it - working with lots of topic branches, merging them easily, and pushing and pulling them about between different repositories is fantastically useful once you become confident with the system. It's just unfortunate that:
- The primary documentation for Git is so hard to parse for newcomers. (Although I'd argue that if you google for almost any Git question, helpful tutorial material (or Stack Overflow answers :)) come up nowadays.)
- There are a few odd behaviours in Git that are hard to change now because many scripts may rely on them, but are confusing to people.
git has a concept of "remotes" - these are like easy nicknames for a repository, so you don't have to use its full URL every time you want to refer to another repository.
origin is just a remote like any other, but you see it very frequently since when you clone a repository for the first time, git clone will by default set up a remote called origin to refer to the URL that you cloned from.
If you do git remote -v that will show you all the remotes you have set up in your local repository, and the URLs that they refer to. (You'll see that it's a bit more complex than I said above, in that a remote can refer to a different URL for pushing and fetching, but you probably don't need to worry about that. :))
origin is the default name of the remote git repository you cloned from. Have a look at .git/refs/remotes/origin/* and .git/config within your sources to see how git knows about it.
The key is "argument-less git-pull". When you do a git pull from a branch, without specifying a source remote or branch, git looks at the branch.<name>.merge setting to know where to pull from. git push -u sets this information for the branch you're pushing.
To see the difference, let's use a new empty branch:
$ git checkout -b test
First, we push without -u:
$ git push origin test
$ git pull
You asked me to pull without telling me which branch you
want to merge with, and 'branch.test.merge' in
your configuration file does not tell me, either. Please
specify which branch you want to use on the command line and
try again (e.g. 'git pull <repository> <refspec>').
See git-pull(1) for details.
If you often merge with the same branch, you may want to
use something like the following in your configuration file:
[branch "test"]
remote = <nickname>
merge = <remote-ref>
[remote "<nickname>"]
url = <url>
fetch = <refspec>
See git-config(1) for details.
Now if we add -u:
$ git push -u origin test
Branch test set up to track remote branch test from origin.
Everything up-to-date
$ git pull
Already up-to-date.
Note that tracking information has been set up so that git pull works as expected without specifying the remote or branch.
Update: Bonus tips:
- As Mark mentions in a comment, in addition to
git pullthis setting also affects default behavior ofgit push. If you get in the habit of using-uto capture the remote branch you intend to track, I recommend setting yourpush.defaultconfig value toupstream. git push -u <remote> HEADwill push the current branch to a branch of the same name on<remote>(and also set up tracking so you can dogit pushafter that).
git push -u origin master
… is the same as:
git push origin master ; git branch --set-upstream master origin/master
Do the last statement, if you forget the -u!
Or you could force it:
git config branch.master.remote origin
git config branch.master.merge refs/heads/master
If you let the command do it for you, it will pick your mistakes like if you typed a non-existent branch or you didn't git remote add; though that might be what you want. :)