From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rene Herman Subject: Re: "git pull . " versus "git merge " Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:56:52 +0200 Message-ID: <48507454.2070506@keyaccess.nl> References: <484F2174.9020508@keyaccess.nl> <237967ef0806111449i7d23976dxa3290eece06b5876@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brandon Casey , Daniel Barkalow , git , Miklos Vajna To: Mikael Magnusson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 12 02:57:48 2008 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 1K6b8K-00089k-L1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:57:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752645AbYFLA4u (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:56:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752288AbYFLA4u (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:56:50 -0400 Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.200]:53801 "EHLO smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750744AbYFLA4t (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:56:49 -0400 Received: from [213.51.146.188] (port=60219 helo=smtp3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl) by smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K6b7O-00076s-48; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:56:46 +0200 Received: from cc334381-b.groni1.gr.home.nl ([82.73.12.33]:44322 helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtp3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K6b7N-0004Gq-Jj; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:56:45 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) In-Reply-To: <237967ef0806111449i7d23976dxa3290eece06b5876@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 11-06-08 23:49, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > For me, git-pull is that additional command, and using git-pull . > to merge feels really really strange. Why would I pull > something I already have? For what it's worth I (as thread starter) agree with this. At least in my mind local and remote branches are very different and I do not mind having to "fetch" the latter first before merging (nor combine the two through a "pull"). I can see the reason for the other viewpoint as well since it emphasises a point about local and remote branches _not_ being very different after all but that's more a symmetry to the implementor than it is to a user I feel. For the user, local and remote branches just are different. And as such I feel it actually helps to just use "merge". Thanks for the answers everyone -- this was a matter of a user worrying that he wasn't getting it... Rene