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
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
* 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
* 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 (according to
> > .git/HEAD). Right now i'm using a script to:
> >
> > read-tree $(tree-id $(cat .git/HEAD))
> > checkou
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:
> > 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 re
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> 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 see lots of reasons for doing a pull as a separate operation.
> One is disconnected operation; (...)
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 s
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
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 CES
> 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 learn
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]>
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 that...
>
> Dunno. I do it personally all the time, with git at least.
>
> What do others think? :-)
>
I think pull is pul
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:18:55AM CEST, I got a letter
where David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> What's the most common thing to do? pull or update?
update for normal users.
> which is easier to type?
> what are people used to?
I think 'git up' is easier to type than
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
This is a minor UI thing, but what the heck. I propose
changing "pull" to ONLY download, and "update" to pull AND merge.
Whenever you want to update, just say "git update", end of story.
Why? It seems oddly inconsistent that "pull" sometimes merges
in changes, but at other times it doesn't. If I n
16 matches
Mail list logo
