On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think >>> about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that happening >>> automatically, it helps teach the model to the user. If it happened in >>> the background then the user might not be confronted with the >>> distributed nature of the tool. >> >> I agree. But I think there is some room for improvement. Do we know >> when the last fetch of the relevant upstream is? If we do, and if it's >> been "a while" (configurable), then we should make a note suggesting >> fetching again in git-status. >> >> This is not exactly my own idea. Gentoo's portage (i.e. friends with >> apt-get, yum... if you're not familiar) also has this explicit "fetch" >> operation, which is called sync. If you haven't sync'd in a while and >> try to install new package, you get a friendly message (that helps me >> a couple times). >> -- >> Duy
Arch's pacman -S sync operation also has the -y flag, which updates the local package databases, and can be used in conjunction with the -u upgrade flag to upgrade repositories. > That seems reasonable. > > Thanks, > Jake To be clear, I'm not advocating changing the *default* behavior of git status; I agree that it wouldn't make sense. And although personally I constantly update remotes manually (to the point where I abhor using pull), I do think there's room to add an option to "fetch the remote-tracking branch" to git status.
