Jakub Narebski wrote:
On 10/22/07, Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> wrote:
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
If I were to suggest any improvements, it'd be to change the semantics of
git-pull to always update the local branches set up to be merged with the
remote tracking branches when they, prior to fetching, pointed to the same
commit, such that when
$ git show-ref master
d4027a816dd0b416dc8c7b37e2c260e6905f11b6 refs/heads/master
d4027a816dd0b416dc8c7b37e2c260e6905f11b6 refs/remotes/origin/master
refs/heads/master gets set to refs/remotes/origin/master post-fetch.
In general, this should fail. Because you are expected to have local
changes in the local branches.
BS argument. Git knows when I haven't got any changes on my local
branches, and it can be fairly safely assumed that when I feel like
making any, I'd like to make them off as fresh a tip as possible unless
I explicitly tell git otherwise.
[cut]
It would be I think possible to make git behave as you want, although I'd rather
(at least at first) have behaviour described above turned on by some option
or config variable. I guess that it would be not that hard to make script to do
what you ant (and probably it would be best if you tried your idea that way).
There are the following caveats.
1. For each local branch that is to be updated on pull, this branch
must be marked as tracking some branch of some repository. This has to
be explicitely done; for example by creating those branches using
--track option.
2. Git can do a merge with conflicts _only_ if that branch is checked
out. So for all local branches which you want to get updated using
"git pull --update-all <repo>" (or something like that), the merge
with remote branch should be either fast-forward, trivial merge, or
merge without conflicts. "git pull --update-all <repo>" would return
then list of updated branches and list of branches which cannot be
updated.
So... are you going to try to implement that?
Yes, but only for fast-forward cases. When there *are* local changes,
the user must decide when to merge those, since he/she may not be done
with them. It doesn't make sense to merge local canges on a not checked
out branch automagically, because then we end up in the very unclear
semantics that Dscho (and myself) fear.
Also, as Steffen pointed out in his mail, this will make "git pull"
largely symmetrical with "git push", which *does* update all the remote
branches, but only if the update results in a fast-forward.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
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
