On Feb 8, 2008 5:44 PM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > None of these "rejected" branches have anything _new_, they > are just stale. Nothing new to say. And I guess the natural follow up question is: would it make sense to tell git pull to do a "merge" for not-checked-out branches where we can safely tell that the resulting "merge" will actually be a fast-forward? Would that be unsafe in any way? Because when I "git checkout bla-stale-branch" to help a fellow developer again, I have to remember to "git merge origin/bla-stale-branch" to get a much needed fast-forward before starting to work. [ Or we could be more proactive at deleting unused local heads. But that's a bit of silly maintenance just to keep things tidy, that git could keep tidy ;-) ... ] cheers, m - 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
