Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use git merge instead of git pull .
Thomas Ackermann th.ac...@arcor.de writes: git pull . works, but git merge is the recommended way for new users to do things. (The old description also should have read The former is actually *not* very commonly used.) I think it is probably a good idea to replace pull . in the two later hunks with merge, but the flow of the explanation reads better if you did not touch the first hunk at all. The section introduced how fully-spelled git pull origin master works, how its parameters can be omitted in a common case of integrating with the branch at a remote repository you usually integrate with, and then the hunk that you touched transitions to the local use, hinting that your local repository is not all that special. It is very commonly used among people who grok that fact, and of course it still works because we do want to support that usage ;-). On the other hand, these later two hunks are not about explaining pull; using git merge in the examples is more appropriate. Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann th.ac...@arcor.de --- Documentation/user-manual.txt | 15 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt index b450980..8a1a441 100644 --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from. fast-forwards,fast-forward; instead, your branch will just be updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.) -The `git pull` command can also be given `.` as the remote repository, -in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so -the commands - -- -$ git pull . branch -$ git merge branch -- - -are roughly equivalent. The former is actually very commonly used. - [[submitting-patches]] Submitting patches to a project --- @@ -2259,7 +2248,7 @@ When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the test branch in preparation to make it public: - -$ git checkout test git pull . speed-up-spinlocks +$ git checkout test git merge speed-up-spinlocks - It is unlikely that you would have any conflicts here ... but you might if you @@ -2271,7 +2260,7 @@ see the value of keeping each patch (or patch series) in its own branch. It means that the patches can be moved into the `release` tree in any order. - -$ git checkout release git pull . speed-up-spinlocks +$ git checkout release git merge speed-up-spinlocks - After a while, you will have a number of branches, and despite the -- 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
Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use git merge instead of git pull .
Thomas Ackermann wrote: --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from. fast-forwards,fast-forward; instead, your branch will just be updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.) -The `git pull` command can also be given `.` as the remote repository, -in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so -the commands - -- -$ git pull . branch -$ git merge branch -- - -are roughly equivalent. The former is actually very commonly used. - I wonder if it would make sense to say they simply *are* equivalent. I.e., what differences are there between those two commands, and could git pull be tweaked to eliminate them? I agree that the historical The former is actually very commonly used ought to go. It wouldn't too relevant for someone learning to use git even if it were still true. ;-) [...] @@ -2259,7 +2248,7 @@ When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the test branch in preparation to make it public: - -$ git checkout test git pull . speed-up-spinlocks +$ git checkout test git merge speed-up-spinlocks - Yes. Hope that helps, Jonathan -- 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
Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use git merge instead of git pull .
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Ackermann wrote: --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from. fast-forwards,fast-forward; instead, your branch will just be updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.) -The `git pull` command can also be given `.` as the remote repository, -in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so -the commands - -- -$ git pull . branch -$ git merge branch -- - -are roughly equivalent. The former is actually very commonly used. - I wonder if it would make sense to say they simply *are* equivalent. I.e., what differences are there between those two commands, and could git pull be tweaked to eliminate them? One difference is that git pull can be configured to rebase. [...] @@ -2259,7 +2248,7 @@ When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the test branch in preparation to make it public: I realize that pull here is not necessarily about the command, but perhaps it would still make sense to change it? -- 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
