On 2007-10-25 13:46:04 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Karl Hasselström wrote:
>
> > On 2007-10-25 07:32:36 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > > And when are we gonna get "fast forward only" for git-merge?
> >
> > I'd like that too. For cases when I know I don't have to do a
> > merge, and want git to yell at me if I'm mistaken. For example, in
> > a repository that tracks an upstream so I can build the latest
> > version, but where I don't normally do any development.
>
> Isn't that called a remote branch that gets updated with "git
> fetch'?
Sure, I could use a detached HEAD instead of a local branch. However,
that'll still not warn me that merging in another branch won't be a
fast-forward.
> You can even trick Git into not using the refs/remotes/ namespace
> for them if you wish.
I'm not sure what'll happen if git fetch tries to update a branch that
I've made local changes to, but I don't imagine it's anything
productive. If not forced it'll fail, and if forced it'll lose my
local commits. The former might actually be sort of what I want (git
complains when I have local commits), but I'm rather fond of the
refs/remotes/ stuff, so this solution sounds like a hack to me. What I
really want is an "extra careful" merge that is guaranteed to do
nothing but a fast-forward if it succeeds.
As is, it's a two-line shell script, though, so it isn't that
important.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
-
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
