On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:34 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > is there a way to do a git pull without it running git fetch?
> > Looking at the source in builtin/pull.c does not seem to indicate so.
>
> The reason behind that is because it does not make any sense for
> "pull", which is meant as a quick short-cut to say "fetch && merge",
> not to run fetch, especially back then when 'git pull' was designed,
> the world was much simpler. There was no "fetch && rebase", our
> branches did not know what their @{upstream}s were. In that simpler
> world, what you are trying to do would have been:
>
> git fetch
> # did I get anything worth integrating?
> git merge FETCH_HEAD
>
> That obviously would not work for those with "pull.rebase", and I do
> not think it makes much sense to teach "git rebase" the same trick
> to read FETCH_HEAD as "git merge" does in the above sequence.
>
> Others may have a better idea, but I do not immediately see any
> solution better than inventing a new option to "git pull".
>
> Another and better option that may be harder to arrange is to make
> sure that a no-op "git fetch" incurs very low cost. If you did so,
Not exactly related. But I often wish to see the list of branch
updates since the last fetch. There's no easy way (that I know) to do
this unless you copy the last fetch's output somewhere. If this "fetch
at low cost" could simply read FETCH_HEAD and summarizes it like a
normal fetch, that would be great. And it should also be very low cost
because we only replay the last part (making summary) of normal fetch.
> "git fetch && git pull" would perform just like your "git fetch &&
> git pull --no-fetch", and we won't need a new option at all.
--
Duy
