Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-28 Thread Philippe Vaucher
Felipe Contreras wrote: == git update == Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse. And here it is:

Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-28 Thread Felipe Contreras
Philippe Vaucher wrote: Sorry if I missed a thread where it was already decided not to include it. Felipe, please don't use this to start any non-constructive behavior (rant on who is right/wrong, my patches are not accepted, etc). I never sent those patches. I gave up on the Git project.

RE: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-10 Thread Felipe Contreras
Felipe Contreras wrote: == git update == Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse. And here it is:

Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-07 Thread Ping Yin
Ping Yin On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, == git update == Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it could be configured to do merges

Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-06 Thread Damien Robert
Felipe Contreras wrote in message 5366db742d494_18f9e4b308aa@nysa.notmuch: == git update == Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so