Carl Worth <cworth@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> So there's this goofy circular notion that people end up with
> If we fix it so that a local merge really is performed with
> "git merge <branch>" instead of "git pull . <branch>" then teaching
> pull=fetch+merge really is a lot easier.
I am wondering if that could be "git merge <committish>..."
instead. I do not care too much about the ... part (i.e. an
Octopus), but I often find myself doing:
git checkout next
git merge "Merge early part of branch 'foo'" HEAD foo~3
when earlier part of "foo" topic are worthy to be in 'next' but
not the later ones.
> In the meantime, pull would still be useless to me, I think. But maybe
> that's just the "default branch to merge" selection being broken.
Have you looked into per-branch configuration for default merge
source recently? It might not be documented well enough,
though, because I do not use it myself, but you should be able
to improve on that (meaning both documentation and setting up
the defaults upon cloning and fetching).
-
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