Summary: There's no git native way to do what you want and it might not be all that great an idea anyway. Because, afaik, this is the best solution for the given problem. You can look around, make experimental changes and commit them, and you can discard any commits you make in this state without impacting any branches by performing another checkout. S: In Git, you can't update a tag directly since tag is just a label to a commit , you need to checkout the same tag as a branch and then commit to it and then create a separate tag. Or if you don't expect to make any changes and you just want to look at what the code looked like at that tag, you can just checkout the tag without creating a branch.
The arguments to git remote add are swapped, but I couldn't then get checkout to work. If not, how do I download that particular version? You may also want to make sure you understand the difference, unlike the majority of angry commenters and downvoters. Several of the comments point out that you could parse the git branch -a results with a shell script that would locally track all the remote branches. Merge 2 branches and checkin this merge in Tfs Because merging 2 branches with git is a lot more easy than with Tfs, you could use git-tfs to do it. I can't find any updates after 2008.
I'm having second thoughts: --mirror does more than just setting up all branches as being tracked. So in a way, you have provided the shortest answer - if you cloned, you already have it. I saw there was a tag for the previous version on the git web page, with object name of something long hex number. If you want to create a new branch to retain commits you create, you may do so now or later by using -b with the checkout command again. I have found several related questions here but none of the answers work for this situation. But if I do git branch -a I can now see the remote branches and I can do a git pull to get the branch I want.
I mean isn't that one of the point of being distributed? You can create a remote-tracking branch by right-clicking on any of them and selecting checkout. What doesn't work, however, is if I want to clone another branch. You should know that if you don't manage well merge changesets and that, in the future, you want to merge again the 2 branches, you will issue a lot of merge conflicts! If this is correct, then expand on your answer with more information, because I aggree with Daniel, this answer deserves more rep. Then you have to check this commit into Tfs with the command rcheckin and a merge changeset will be created into Tfs. The next answer down second most upvotes answers a different question to wit: how to pull all branches, and, again, this only works for those you're tracking locally.
If you check the Load Putty Key checkbox, clone will auto load putty key file with Pageant. Finally, all commands have aliases, to make memorization easier. And that works perfectly for me. First I made sure I knew the tag name spelling. You can only checkout one branch at a time in Git. Does that help with what you're trying to accomplish? However, when you want to clone a repo with a lot of branches all the ways illustrated are above are lengthy and tedious in respect to a much cleaner and quicker way that I am going to show, though it's a bit complicated. In other words it fetches the objects which are reachable by the objects that are already downloaded.
I don't think you should have to create remote-tracking branches ahead of time. I was going to comment on your answer being wrong, but then I checked it and found, you are perfectly right. The Github repository has multiple branches. At first clone your repository, then change into the destination folder. Or, maybe this isn't the way that Git wants me to structure things, and I'm certainly open to that. I agree this behavior should be better known.
Depending on the source repository, this will save you a lot of disk space. Working with branches Fetch, Pull and Check in Working with branches, for the main commands fetch, pull and rcheckin , is similar than for the trunk, git-tfs detecting which tfs remote to work with. You can use --mirror instead of --bare if your remote repo has remotes of its own. And any individual project cloning the Ruby on Rails skeleton repository. Please see also the which many people prefer. Switched to a new branch 'somebranch' Git will check whether a branch with the same name exists in exactly one remote, and if it does, it tracks it the same way as if you had explicitly specified that it's a remote branch. However, it sets up the repository as a bare repository, so you have to turn it back into a normal repository afterwards.
That said, you could use a shell script to parse 'git branch -a'. Then fetch the merged branch and retry to fetch the branch. The init is innocuous, and changing tags will automatically update the checked out code. The output looked like this, though the real list was longer. Now, starting with Git 1. Once you do that, the branch will appear under the local menu on the left.