Il giorno lun, 10/09/2012 alle 16.12 +0100, Phil Holmes ha scritto: > Thanks, John. I'm following the CG to the letter, and type: > > git checkout origin/release/unstable > > This puts me into detached head state - presumably because I don't have a > local branch called release/unstable.
If you want to update origin/release/unstable, it's saner to create a local branch that tracks origin/release/unstable, which git checkout release/unstable will do for you if you have a recent enough git (if you don't and don't have a release/unstable branch already, you'll probably get an error anyway). In any case, if you already have a local branch release/unstable, check it out, set it to track origin/release/unstable (IIRC there's some subcommand of "git remote" for doing this), then pull. > Following that with > > git merge origin > > and I get "fatal: 'origin' is not a commit". I guess this works with some older Git version, but no longer does, or you need to have the remote "origin" have a HEAD, you may find details about this in "man gitrevisions"... frankly I have no good clue, I'd just do git merge origin/master instead. > I presume the intention of the > merge is to get release/unstable to the same point as master? Yes. > Strikes me we > should not _require_ a release/unstable branch on the machine where the > updates are being done. What's the problem with creating a new local branch to track a remote one? Creating branches is cheap, isn't it? > Could someone tell me the syntax to merge master > into a branch in detached head state? Why do you want to complicate things with a detached head? > (I'll update the CG once I've run it through parrot-fashion). Great! Best J _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
