Hi, On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> > >>>>> writes: > > >> Ahh, it's "git-pull . origin". > > Johannes> This is just a merge, not a real pull (it leaves out the fetch > Johannes> part). > > OK, so what does what a naked "git-pull" used to do before, which was > "fetch origin, then pull it into the current branch"? $ git repo-config branch.xyz.remote origin $ git repo-config branch.xyz.merge refs/heads/<whateveryourfirstfetchis> > Johannes> So, for each branch (e.g. "xyz") for which you have a > Johannes> preferred upstream (e.g. remote "linus" with branch > Johannes> "master"), say > > Johannes> $ git repo-config branch.xyz.remote linus > Johannes> $ git repo-config branch.xyz.merge refs/heads/master > > But that's not upward compatible. The default should be the old > behavior, or we need a better way to notify people that this breaks > things. AFAIK it is not in maint. Not even in 1.4.4.3. So, you got it with master. So, TFA should have been in a message "What's in git (stable)". Alas, the commit a71fb0a1: "git-pull: refuse default merge without branch.*.merge" was merged _after_ the latest announcement. HOWEVER, it has been in "What's cooking in git (topics)". Having said that, we could (at least for some time) print a big red warning for the specific case of "git pull" meaning "git pull origin <whateveristhefirstfetchedhead>" that this will GO AWAY SOON. Of course, you would not see it. Only your script. BTW I would _never_ allow a script to rely on such a DWIM feature. Ciao, Dscho - 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