In the Branches window change "Local Branches" to "local".

not sure about "upstream", but "origin" is a user chosen remote name. (although "origin" is a git default) It should really be "Local" with a capitol "L" to be consistent with the other static strings "Tags" and "Stashes".

Thanks for the comment.

"upstream" and "origin" can be changed by the user to something else (Right click on repo in Branches Window > Rename ...). "origin" is a git default, as you mention, and a conventional name for the repo it references. "upstream" is also conventional in the git community and presumably this is why SmartGit defaults to "upstream".

I'd suggest "Tags" and "Stashes" be kept as they are, Captial cased, as an indicator they are not repos.

The alternatives would be:

* By default (and only at the SmartGit level), to change "origin" and "upstream" to "Origin Branches" and "Upstream Branches";

* Allow "Local Branches" to be renamed (so folk like myself who'd prefer "local" can go ahead and change it without contradicting the desires of others who might have reasons for objecting).

"origin" and "upstream" are the names of remotes. You can add as many remotes as you want, and SmartGit will list all of them. The Branches panel could be split up into "Local", "Remotes", "Tags", and "Stashes". "Stashes" could be listed under "Local" since those will always be local.

Thanks Jordan. Yes there could be an alternative arrangement along the lines you mention. Which might play out like ...

- Local

-- master

-- Tags [Which are also local]

-- Stashes

- Remotes

-- origin

---- master

---- topic-branch

-- upstream

---- master

---- topic-branch

But I think the current hierarchy, with Tags and Stashes at the first level, is probably more convenient. A third alternative might be ...

- Repos

-- local

--- master

--- topic-branch

---- master

---- topic-branch

-- upstream

---- master

---- topic-branch

- Tags

- Stashes

In addition, and however the hierarchy is arranged, possibly the name of the window ought be changed from "Branches" to "References" (??).

I think the my main point is that "Branches" window, in its current form, seems a bit conceptually muddled. But I'd accept the counterpoint: it's not so muddled to warrant a refactor.