On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:41:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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 wasn't proposing any new command, I was trying to express the operation that users coming from non-distributed VCSs want to perform (which is called "update" in svn). The problem is that a DVCS operates in a completely different way and a lot of users do not seem to want to learn the difference but simply try to map the existing commands that they know onto Git commands ([1] is the top result for "svn commands to git" on Google and maps "svn update" straight to "git pull"). [1] http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html > > 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 [1] 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? I remember looking at this a few weeks ago and being concerned that it's impossible to tell what options you actually have in git-pull because it just invokes 'git fetch "$@"' and git-pull(1) does advertise a number of fetch options. It may be that "test $# = 0" is good enough, but ideally I want to test for non-option arguments. I can't see a way of doing this without putting knowledge of all of the fetch options in git-pull so that we can handle options with arguments correctly. -- 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
