On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:54:49PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Peter Baumann wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:06:24PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: >>> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:12:29PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote: >>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:48 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I want git pull to work like git push. >>>>>> That strikes me as a less complete solution, since it only helps in >>>>>> the >>>>>> case where the other branches all happen to be unmodified locally >>>>>> (hence >>>>>> can be fast-forwarded). In other cases the "git push" will still emit >>>>>> a >>>>>> spurious error. >>>>> Well, but then there's something you should really think >>>>> about. >>>> Perhaps, but not necessarily; you may have some branches with local >>>> changes that you're content to leave unpushed (and un-updated). >>> Sure, but that won't change. The only thing I'm proposing is that >>> local copies of remote branches are automatically fast-forwarded >>> on every pull, but only if >>> >>> * the branch has no modifications what so ever >>> * the branch is set up to auto-merge with the particular branch >>> fetched from the particular remote >>> >>> I really don't see any downsides what so ever with this. Those >>> of you who do, please enlighten me. >>> >> You can't check what got added in your pull, e.g you can't review the new >> code with something like >> gitk next..origin/next > > That's what git-fetch is for. > If I run git pull <remote> and have a auto-merge setup, I would merge the remote side into my local branch. Then doing gitk ORIG_HEAD.. does the trick for to review what got added _and_ merged into my local branch. I can't use this for other local branches not checked out. And as I normally want to merge, your suggested behaviour is fine with me *IFF* it is configurable _per_ branch. >> I often do something like this, just to see what got changed. So at least >> in my opinion you have to add a third point: >> * the branch has no modifications what so ever >> * the branch is set up to auto-merge with the particular branch >> fetched from the particular remote >> AND >> * the user set a config option to always autofastfoward if the above >> conditions are true! This could be implemented as a global option with >> a per branch overwrite. > > I'd be fine with that, except I think it's fairly dangerous to have > different defaults. The two first points are sort of the core of the > case I've been arguing all along. > I aggree. And thats why I think your autofastforward should be set to "false" per default, so that the distinction between local and remote branches would still be clearly defined. Changing this would confuse new users a lot more, me thinks. But having the option for power users sounds fine! >> Only if this option is added so a user can mark a branch to never >> autofastforward (but it is still possible to have an auto-merge config) >> you won't >> loose valuable information. > > Sure. I was thinking something along these lines: > > [branch "foo"] > remote = bar > merge = some-branch > autofastforward = false > Thats exactlcy what I had in mind. Maybe and a [core] global_autofastforward = true so you could have a sane default for every branch which is missing the autofastforward statement. (or make it per [remote "foo"] ?) > Or use git-fetch. git-pull is "fetch + merge". Conceptually, I don't > think it'll be any problem what so ever telling anyone that the branches > that aren't currently checked out get merged automatically only if they > result in a fast-forward. > I'm not so sure about that. -Peter - 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
