On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm happy to use more accurate phrasing -- I was just going for a minimal change.
>
> How about the following, consistent for both cases:
>
> 'git pull' merges branch master with remote branch
> master
> 'git pull' rebases branch rebaser on top of remote branch
> side
>
> ?
>
> I like the above because the keywords & branch names are in consistent locations, making it easier to parse the output.
The output of git remote show seems much too verbose for the
information it provides. Something like this, I think, provides the
same information in much less space:
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
maint Tracked
man Tracked
master Tracked
next Tracked
pu Tracked
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
Local branches configured to pull from this remote:
master upstream is master (merges)
wip/remote-HEAD upstream is next (rebases)
When run with "-n" the status column would be blank or say "Status not
available with -n".
$0.02. :-)
j.
--
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
