Junio C Hamano escreveu:
FWIW, I regularly mess up with the differences between fetching,
pulling and merging. In particular, having to do a two step process
to get remote changes in,
git pull url-to-server master:master
..error message about not being a fast-forward..
git pull --update-head-ok url-to-server master:master
..still an error message about update not being a fast-forward..
(sigh)
Sigh indeed.
Why don't you do the simple and obvious
git pull url master
It is not all evident from the git-pull man-page that this is the
obvious and most common usage.
or "git pull url" if you already know the master is the branch
you are interested in.
Because I usually replace verbose commands with shortcuts only when I
understand exactly what the shortcut is.
To me it's very unlogical that
master:current-branch
doesn't work, but
master:
does work, and does what I'd expect
master:current-branch
to do. Interestingly, doing
pull ..url.. master:HEAD
also doesn't merge into the current branch, but rather creates a bogus
refs/heads/HEAD
I use the remote:local syntax, because I started using GIT in scripted
compiles from copied branches of remote repositories. There the explicit
remote:local statements are necessary because there is no default branch.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
-
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