From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Baumann Subject: Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:28:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20071024212854.GB6069@xp.machine.xx> References: <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> <20071024203335.GJ29830@fieldses.org> <471FB3D0.4040800@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Steffen Prohaska , Johannes Schindelin , Jakub Narebski , Federico Mena Quintero , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 24 23:29:17 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 1Iknmp-0001jr-3j for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:29:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753656AbXJXV26 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:28:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754688AbXJXV26 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:28:58 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:37161 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753604AbXJXV25 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:28:57 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2007 21:28:55 -0000 Received: from mason.hofmann.stw.uni-erlangen.de (EHLO localhost) [131.188.24.36] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2007 23:28:55 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1252284 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ZEB8bIumZHFHcwYmKu2nZJQlG7uSsEfSeKk3M4r h2m6sRmlox6q5n Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471FB3D0.4040800@op5.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:06:24PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> 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). > > Sure, but that won't change. The only thing I'm proposing is that > local copies of remote branches are automatically fast-forwarded > on every pull, but only if > > * the branch has no modifications what so ever > * the branch is set up to auto-merge with the particular branch > fetched from the particular remote > > I really don't see any downsides what so ever with this. Those > of you who do, please enlighten me. > You can't check what got added in your pull, e.g you can't review the new code with something like gitk next..origin/next I often do something like this, just to see what got changed. So at least in my opinion you have to add a third point: * the branch has no modifications what so ever * the branch is set up to auto-merge with the particular branch fetched from the particular remote AND * the user set a config option to always autofastfoward if the above conditions are true! This could be implemented as a global option with a per branch overwrite. Only if this option is added so a user can mark a branch to never autofastforward (but it is still possible to have an auto-merge config) you won't loose valuable information. -Peter