Why doesn't `git merge` default to the tracked branch in the same way e.g. `git push` does?
Often I find myself performing a pull, and when I switch branch I'm told that "Your branch is behind the tracked remote branch 'origin/ master' by 12 commits". However, despite git knowing where my branch is based and how far away it is, I still have to specify `git merge origin/master` to perform the merge. It's been pointed out that another `git pull` will usually have the same effect, but it seems that this introduces a redundant fetch, and to be honest I couldn't work out whether the pull would fail if the remote repo was unavailable for any reason. Obviously this is a really minor point, and it doesn't exactly affect my working day for more than a few seconds, but I was curious what I was missing that such a complete package as git had this little internal inconsistency. TIA, Gareth --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
