On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > * Mentioning git-fetch before git-pull in all documentation newborn gitizens > are likely to come across. However, I also think it might make sense to talk about the _simple_ form of "git pull" first. The form I use is actually a lot simpler (conceptually) than the "short" form. When you do git pull <reponame> <branchname> there are very few things that can confuse you (although trying to do it without a current branch at all is apparently one such thing ;). There are no local branches to worry about, and there aren't any issues about what the default repository or branchname on the remote side would be either. So in many ways, if you use this format, you simply never have to worry. You may have to _type_ a bit more, so it's not the short or concise format, but it sure is the _simple_ format. There simply isn't anything to be confused about. And yes, I actually tend to use this even for project that I don't develop on, partly because the defaults for the short and concise formats are bad. For example, I follow the "modesetting" branch on the xorg intel graphics driver tree, and because I'm always on that branch, what I do is git pull origin modesetting which works correctly (while "git pull" would _not_ have done the right thing: it would have picked the right repository, but it would have picked the "master" branch of that repository, not the "modesetting" branch). And notice how I don't do _any_ development there, I just follow that branch. The "merge" will obviously always be a fast-forward, but that's exactly what I want. > Most git-users aren't Linus, and for every successful project the > maintainers are outnumbered 100 to 1 by the contributors. Well, as mentioned, I think even for non-developers, doing pulls with explicit branchnames is actually perfectly sane. Linus - 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