Andreas Krey <a.k...@gmx.de> writes: > 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.
This discussion makes as much sense to me as debating whether "git fiddle" should, in case a simple "git hammer" does not apply, should translate to an implied "git screwdriver", and when it does, whether more people's workflows involve turning a screw left rather than right by default. What the gibbins? I don't even use git pull. I use git fetch, and then, depending on my needs, I rebase or merge. git pull is not part of my workflow exactly because it does non-connected things not translating unambiguously to a particular identifiable workflow. It might sometimes, more by accident than design, do what I would have done anyway. But I prefer making that choice on my own, depending on the particular circumstances. -- David Kastrup -- 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