John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes:
>> Here, "git pull . branch1" is merely saying "I want to integrate
>> the work on my current branch with that of branch1" without saying
>> how that integration wants to happen.
> The change that I think is important is that the "bring my branch
> up-to-date" operation should force the user to choose what to do if the
> branch does not fast-forward to its upstream. If that was spelled "git
> update" then having "git pull" perform a merge would be fine, but we
> spell this operation as "git pull" so the change needs to happen there.
I am not sure I quite get what you want to say with "git update",
and I am not sure if I necessarily want to know---I do not think we
would want to add yet another command that DWIMs for certain _I_,
that may not match newbie expectations.
> I don't think "git pull remote branch" falls into the same category as
> plain "git pull" so I'm not convinced that defaulting to merge there is
> unreasonable. The original message about this  did talk about only
> "git pull" with no arguments.
If you want to limit the scope to only "git pull" (without any
command line argument), I actually do not have strong preference for
or against it either way. Perhaps a follow-up patch to be squashed?
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