>
>
> git fetch origin
> git merge origin/master
>
OK, maybe safer.
For instance, you take for granted that everyone would use
> `git commit -a` for a start and then may be try using "advanced" stuff.
> But as one example, here at my $dayjob a bunch of webdevs hired about
> 2-3 month a
> From: Vasily Makarov
>
> Git documentation defines commit ancestry as "reachability" of one commit
> from another.
> Formally, this might mean that every commit is ancestor and descendant of
> itself.
> I've also checked git merge-base --is-ancestor and found it returns "true"
> for same co
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 18:26:15 -0800 (PST)
Anthony Berglas wrote:
> Thank you for all your very considered replies. The solution I end
> ed up using (without the complex explanations) was
>
> git push
> # fail
> git pull
> git merge origin/master
This step is not needed: `git pull`, when you're o
> From: Sam Roberts
> Alternatively, there must be a command that gives the path to the root
> of the current .git tree, what is that command? I could use its output
> as an argument to git ls-files...
"git rev-parse --show-toplevel"
There are several related options; see the manual page.
Dale
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 06:42:56 -0800 (PST)
Vasily Makarov wrote:
> Git documentation defines commit ancestry as "reachability" of one
> commit from another.
> Formally, this might mean that every commit is ancestor and
> descendant of itself.
> I've also checked git merge-base --is-ancestor and fou
Git documentation defines commit ancestry as "reachability" of one commit
from another.
Formally, this might mean that every commit is ancestor and descendant of
itself.
I've also checked git merge-base --is-ancestor and found it returns "true"
for same commit passed twice as argument.
This is
Thanks, I thought something was wrong; I'll give it a try.
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:31:58 AM UTC-4, Ben A wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am new to git; and created a bare shared repository from one I had been
> working on.
> The shared depot has a reference to a remote branch I had copied from;
> but
On Tuesday, 28 October 2014 10:34:26 UTC+1, Manjunath Kashyap wrote:
>
> We've been running git 1.7.2 on staging/production server (Linux),
> We are planning to upgrade the existing GIT to latest version.
> My main preoccupations are that we've got a number of ongoing projects
> that are all "in g
