From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20071024203335.GJ29830@fieldses.org> References: <471CB443.9070606@op5.se> <8fe92b430710221635x752c561ejcee14e2526010cc9@mail.gmail.com> <92320AA3-6D23-4967-818D-F7FA3962E88D@zib.de> <90325C2E-9AF4-40FB-9EFB-70B6D0174409@zib.de> <20071024192058.GF29830@fieldses.org> <471F9FD1.6080002@op5.se> <20071024194849.GH29830@fieldses.org> <86784BB7-076F-4504-BCE6-4580A7C68AAC@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Ericsson , Johannes Schindelin , Jakub Narebski , Federico Mena Quintero , git@vger.kernel.org To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 24 22:33:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IkmvO-0005fK-Ed for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:33:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754095AbXJXUdp (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754606AbXJXUdp (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:45 -0400 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:46083 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753714AbXJXUdo (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:44 -0400 Received: from bfields by fieldses.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ikmv1-0002YU-Af; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86784BB7-076F-4504-BCE6-4580A7C68AAC@zib.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:12:29PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:48 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >> >>> I want git pull to work like git push. >> >> That strikes me as a less complete solution, since it only helps in the >> case where the other branches all happen to be unmodified locally (hence >> can be fast-forwarded). In other cases the "git push" will still emit a >> spurious error. > > Well, but then there's something you should really think > about. Perhaps, but not necessarily; you may have some branches with local changes that you're content to leave unpushed (and un-updated). So the case where this proposal helps is the case where: - the user hasn't learned how to name individual branches on the push commandline, or has learned to do so, but wants less typing, and - the user has one or more unmodified copies of remote branches lying around, and - the user minds being reminded that those copies are out of date, and - the user either has no *modified* copies of local branches, or has some but doesn't mind being reminded that they're out of date on each push. --b.