Gareth Adams <gareth.adams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Unfortunately my other option is:
>
> git pull; ...; git checkout otherbranch; git merge myremote/otherbranch
>
> which is annoying extra typing.
Replace 'pull' with 'fetch' and a bit more regular pattern would emerge.
The code indeed knows (as you can see "git pull" can figure it out) what
other ref the current branch is configured to merge with by default.
There is even a plumbing to do this for script writers.
$ git for-each-ref --format='%(upstream)' $(git symbolic-ref HEAD)
We can teach this short-hand to "git merge", perhaps:
$ git merge --default
But "no argument" cannot be the short-hand, because...
> 1) At the moment, `git merge` does nothing. Except mock me for not giving it a
> command in a format it recognises. This change wouldn't have any effect that
> would cause anyone a problem
... except for people who uses a script that does
commits=
while some condition
do
commit=$(find some other commit that should be merged)
commits="$commits$commit "
done
git merge $commits
and expect the last step will fail without doing any damage when the loop
finds no new developments. "no argument means --default" will break their
scripts.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html