* Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think pull is pull. If you are doing lots of local stuff and do not
want it overwritten, it should have been in a forked branch.
I disagree. This already forces you to have two branches (one to pull
from to get the data, mirroring the remote
Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:01:57AM CEST, I got a letter
where Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
[...]
fatal: unable to execute 'gitmerge-file.sh'
fatal: merge program failed
Pure stupidity of mine, I forgot to add gitmerge-file.sh to the list of
scripts which get
* Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:01:57AM CEST, I got a letter
where Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
[...]
fatal: unable to execute 'gitmerge-file.sh'
fatal: merge program failed
Pure stupidity of mine, I forgot to add
Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:32:35PM CEST, I got a letter
where Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
* Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yet another thing: what is the canonical 'pasky way' of simply nuking
the current files and checking out the latest tree
Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:32:35PM CEST, I got a letter
where Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
* Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yet another thing: what is the canonical 'pasky way' of simply nuking
the current files and checking out the latest
David A. Wheeler wrote:
I propose changing pull to ONLY download, and update to pull AND merge.
Why? It seems oddly inconsistent that pull sometimes merges
in changes, but at other times it doesn't.
true
I propose that there be two subcommands, pull and update
(now that update isn't a reserved
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:05:10PM CEST, I got a letter
where Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 11:28 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:18:55AM CEST, I got a letter
where David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me
I disagree. This already forces you to have two branches (one to pull
from to get the data, mirroring the remote branch, one for your real
work) uselessly and needlessly.
...
These naming issues may appear silly but I think they matter big time
for usability, intuitiveness, and learning
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 12:50 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:05:10PM CEST, I got a letter
where Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 11:28 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:18:55AM CEST, I got
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
I disagree. This already forces you to have two branches (one to pull
from to get the data, mirroring the remote branch, one for your real
work) uselessly and needlessly.
If you pull in a non-tracked tree, it certainly won't apply the
changes, so you
Daniel Barkalow wrote:
See, I don't think you ever want to just pull. You want to
pull-and-do-something, but the something could be any operation...
In a _logical_ sense that's true; I'd only want to pull data if I intended
to (possibly) do something with it. But as a _practical_ matter,
I can
11 matches
Mail list logo
