Hi, On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > It would be a matter of seconds until someone asks "why only > > fast-forwards? Would it not be _much_ better to merge _always_? > > Stupid git." > > > > And all because the concept of "local" vs "remote" was blurred. > > It's already blurred, since we have git-pull instead of just git-fetch. Huh? How is "I ask git pull to fetch the remote branch, and merge it into my local branch" a blurring of local vs remote branch? The local branch is still the local branch where it is _my_ responsibility to update or change anything. The remote branch is not. If at all, I can push -- iff it fast-forwards. The fact that you can set up local mirroring branches (with "git remote add") which are only updated via "git fetch" is _no_ blurring of the concepts: we make it quite explicit that you cannot check them out. They are not local branches. Hth, 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
