title: Git Branches NOT Showing in "git branch" after Pull or Fetch but "git checkout" works ...?
body: <p>After committing my latest work on a new branch <code>branchname</code> to my local git repo on machine A, I pushed that work to my gitlab remote repo with</p>
  
  <pre><code>$ git push origin branchname 
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>The <code>master</code> branch was already in sync with the remote repo. All branches showed up on the remote repo on my gitlab list. </p>
  
  <p>I later went to machine B. I first did a </p>
  
  <pre><code>$ git pull origin master 
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>and master was updated, but my new <code>branchname</code> didn't show up when I typed <code>git branch</code>, nor did another branch that I new existed in the history tree. I went to this <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6373277/git-sync-local-repo-with-remote-one">post</a> and followed the directions from the first answer. Another 'git branch' still did not show my other branches. On a whim, I simply tried to do </p>
  
  <pre><code>$ git checkout branchname 
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>and it was there and checked out fine. A <code>git branch</code> command then showed master and branchname in my list of branches. I did the same thing with another branch, and it too then showed up in the branch list after a <code>git branch</code> command.</p>
  
  <p>Is this normal git behavior for such operations? The main thing I am wondering is if you pull or fetch from a remote repo to update a local repo that had to know previous knowledge of branches on the remote, why don't they show up during a <code>git branch</code> command? And, why can I check them out when I couldn't see them after a <code>git branch</code>?</p>
  
  <p>This saga is similar to <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12319968/remote-branch-not-showing-up-in-git-branch-r">THIS</a> one, but my branches were actually there and just NOT showing following git branch commands until I checked them out.</p>