> By running "git pull", the user may obtain yet newer commits from > the upstream, which very likely will happen in an active project, or > "git fetch" launched by "git pull" will return without doing > anything after noticing there is nothing new. > > As long as the updates to the upstream is also a fast-forward, it > will still fast-forward you, but to an even newer state of the > upstream. > > There is no harm done[*1*] by suggesting "git pull" over "git > merge", no? OK, I'm mostly convinced. A more verbose, educational output could read: (use "git pull" to fetch newer commits from upstream and update your local branch) (use "git merge" to update your local branch) > [Footnote] > > *1* There is a bigger problem with this message, especially when the > user sees it on 'master', but your message is about the case where > you are strictly behind and that bigger problem will not be an > issue, so I won't discuss it further. No idea what's this "bigger problem with this message". Care to expand? Thanks. -- 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