On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:01:49 +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I didn't mean "replace 'pull' with 'update' everywhere".  I meant
> "Introduce 'update' that lets integrate your history into that from
> the remote, which is to integrate in a direction opposite from how
> 'pull' does".  

That still doesn't quite solve my problem. If I'm tracking origin/master
in a local master branch, I can just use 'git pull' to get my 'feature'
branch (which is named master) updated to the current state of the origin.
This amounts to 'integrating' origin/master into my master.

When I finally want to deliver and push to origin/master, I put on the
integrator's hat, and I cat do a 'git update' that will do the merge
in reverse, and push the result to origin/master. The result will look
like origin pulled my master branch into his.

Problem is that whether to use pull or update depends on whether I
intend to push afterwards; and additionally, if I can push fast-forward
without needing to 'git update' the integration into origin/master will
look weird.

(Oh, and please don't name it 'update' - we have an important alias
of that name.)


"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
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