On 02/07/2017 01:45 AM, Phil Hord wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote:
> Do you mean you almost pushed some changed history with "--force"
> which would have lost others' changes? Use of this option is
> discouraged on shared branches for this very reason. But if you do
> use
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think
>>> about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that h
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think
>> about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that happening
>> automatically, it helps teach the model to the
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think
> about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that happening
> automatically, it helps teach the model to the user. If it happened in
> the background then the user mi
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Samuel Lijin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Phil Hord wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote:
>>> I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote
>>> server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote.
>>>
>>
>>
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Phil Hord wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote:
>> I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote
>> server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote.
>>
>
> Do you mean you almost pushed some changed history with "--fo
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 22:46:53 -0800
Ron Pero wrote:
[...]
> Still, one way or another, it was easy to feel tripped up by that and
> some kind of verbal cue could help.
> I wonder if this kind of message would help: Latest fetch: {timestamp}
[...]
Timestamps have little to no sense with regard to h
Hi Phil
Thanks very much for your reply.
I do understand why git status should not automatically fetch from the
server. The solution is that I become aware of that nuance (yes, I am
fairly new to git) and conduct myself that way.
Still, one way or another, it was easy to feel tripped up by that
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote:
> I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote
> server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote.
>
Do you mean you almost pushed some changed history with "--force"
which would have lost others' changes? Use of this o
Hi
I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote
server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote.
This page explains it well.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27828404/why-does-git-status-show-branch-is-up-to-date-when-changes-exist-upstream
That page also contai
10 matches
Mail list logo