From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:40:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20070101214023.GB23857@fieldses.org> References: <11676088584199-git-send-email-bfields@fieldses.org> <1167608858759-git-send-email-bfields@fieldses.org> <11676088582634-git-send-email-bfields@fieldses.org> <7vd55zd1nm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vwt47bjwa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070101213906.GA23857@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Pearce , Luben Tuikov , Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 01 22:40:31 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H1UtR-0007lT-FJ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:40:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932573AbXAAVkZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:40:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932740AbXAAVkZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:40:25 -0500 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:34694 "EHLO pickle.fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932573AbXAAVkZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:40:25 -0500 Received: from bfields by pickle.fieldses.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1UtL-0006uy-5L; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:40:23 -0500 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070101213906.GA23857@fieldses.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:39:06PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:44:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > How about doing this? The difference this time around is that > > if you have non-wildcard refspec listed first, which usually > > is the case for people with established git workflow with > > existing repositories, we use the old-and-proven rule to > > merge the first set of refs. An earlier round botched this > > completely by basing the logic on lack of branch.*.merge, > > which broke for many people. > > Updated man page assuming that change; does this look any better? Also, resend of the following patch: --b. [PATCH] Documentation: remove master:origin example from pull-fetch-param.txt This is no longer a useful example. Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" --- Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt | 4 ---- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt index e852f41..8d4e950 100644 --- a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt +++ b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt @@ -39,10 +39,6 @@ checkout -b my-B remote-B`). Run `git fetch` to keep track of the progress of the remote side, and when you see something new on the remote branch, merge it into your development branch with `git pull . remote-B`, while you are on `my-B` branch. -The common `Pull: master:origin` mapping of a remote `master` -branch to a local `origin` branch, which is then merged to a -local development branch, again typically named `master`, is made -when you run `git clone` for you to follow this pattern. + [NOTE] There is a difference between listing multiple -- 1.5.0.rc0.gac28