Re: Default behavior of git pull

[Mathias Kunter <mathiaskunter@gmail.com>]

Hi Bagas,

thanks for your reply.

> Since you do centralized workflow like above, I advise you to integrate
> from remote with git fetch + git merge.

I'm aware of this. However, if I know that I didn't commit any changes 
to the local branch since I last pushed it (as in the given example), 
then it should be possible to use a simple "git pull" IMHO.

It seems unnecessarily complex to me that users would have to use "git 
pull origin fix-1" in this situation, when a simple "git pull" could 
also work.


Am 31.05.21 um 13:27 schrieb Bagas Sanjaya:
> Hi Mathias,
> 
> On 31/05/21 16.18, Mathias Kunter wrote:
>> Wouldn't it make sense if "git pull" would by default also pull the 
>> branch with the same name from the remote, in case no upstream is 
>> configured?
>>
>> If I can push to a remote with a simple "git push", then I'd also 
>> expect to be able to pull from that same remote with a simple "git pull".
>>
>> Does anything speak against this?
>>
>> Example:
>>
>>    git clone $url
>>    git checkout -b fix-1
>>    # do commits
>>    git push           # push to origin/fix-1 (works)
>>    git push origin    # push to origin/fix-1 (works)
>>    # other people push to origin/fix-1
>>    git pull           # pull from origin/fix-1 (fails)
>>    git pull origin    # pull from origin/fix-1 (fails)
> 
> IME, I did git fetch first before I did git pull, unless I have repos 
> that I didn't intentionally want to contribute to (just collecting 
> them). When I choose to work, I always create a branch, then submit 
> PR/patches from that against mainline.
> 
> Since you do centralized workflow like above, I advise you to integrate 
> from remote with git fetch + git merge.
> 
> And you asked whether plain git pull can work. It is yes, provided that 
> you don't do any local work on remote-tracking branches (such as 
> mainline or hotfixes).
>