From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Subject: Re: bad git pull
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:53:38 -0800
Message-ID: <7vu0d9lxx9.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
References: <68948ca0512151537v2d8f22c8x962c55bd507af8cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<7vzmn2kjw1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 16 00:55:37 2005
Return-path: <git-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1En2uy-0001bd-Q6
	for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:53:49 +0100
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751197AbVLOXxk (ORCPT <rfc822;gcvg-git@m.gmane.org>);
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:53:40 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751204AbVLOXxk
	(ORCPT <rfc822;git-outgoing>); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:53:40 -0500
Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27]:60875 "EHLO
	fed1rmmtao12.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751197AbVLOXxk (ORCPT <rfc822;git@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:53:40 -0500
Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127])
          by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP
          id <20051215235149.FCUE17437.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>;
          Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:51:49 -0500
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vzmn2kjw1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's
	message of "Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:42:06 -0800")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/13722>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

> Don Zickus <dzickus@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I notice if I create a branch (and switch to it) in the linux kernel
>> off of say version 2.6.14, then later do a git pull, things get ugly. 
>> It seems like all the upstream changes are being merged into the
>> 2.6.14 branch (instead of the latest kernel tag).
>>
>> Is this a user error because the tool is still fragile?
>
> I do not understand the question.
>
> The user wanted all the good developments from the mainline into
> the fork he created starting at 2.6.14, and the tool did what
> was asked.  Why would you want to forbid that from happening,
> and what did you want to happen instead?

Actually I think I do understand the question.  You have a clone
of linux-2.6 repository, and your "origin" branch tracks the
bleeding edge from Linus.  You also have "myhack" branch that
was forked off from 2.6.14, and wanted to see what new things
Linus has by updating "origin", and perhaps merge those changes
into your "master" which keeps track of your hacks based on
Linus tip, but unfortunately you were on "myhack" branch.

Ouch.

So what you wanted to do was probably:

	$ git fetch ;# this updates "origin" to Linus tip

instead of

	$ git pull ;# this updates "origin" to Linus tip *and*
                    # merges that into the current branch

As you may probably know, you can recover by

	$ git reset --hard

While I am sympathetic, this "Oops, I said pull when I meant
fetch" sounds remotely similar to "oops, I said 'rm -r' when I
meant to say 'ls -r'".  Is it that the tool is too fragile?