On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:29 AM, John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
> Note that in my email that started this, I tried to be clear that I was
> talking about "git pull" *without a branch name*.  If this user
> explicitly says "git pull remote branch" then I consider that a clear
> indication that they really do mean to perform a merge; I would not
> recommend changing the current behaviour in that case.
> If the user just says "git pull" then it is more likely that they are
> just trying to synchronise with the upstream branch, in which case they
> probably don't actually want a merge.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  I was going to write earlier that I
almost wish there was a separate command for getting your local branch
"in sync" with the remote one.

BTW, it also doesn't help that `git pull` is suggested as the answer
anytime a push cannot succeed.  I've warned my users about using `git
pull`, and--unfortunately--they sometimes forget because the advice is
right there in front of them.

I agree with John here: it's a bare `git pull` that is often the
culprit.  Of course, the asymmetry between `git pull` and `git pull
remote branch` is a little bothersome too, but the team does that
*far* less often.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to