Hi, On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote: > 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? That question comes up pretty often, I think. But you need a working directory to resolve conflicts for merges. You only have one, though. So no, I think it is saner to have tracking branches (which are updated anyway), and local branches. And once you're done with a branch, you simply push it, and then delete it (you will still have the result in the tracking branch). Ciao, 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
