From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" Subject: Re: nicer frontend to get rebased tree? Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:33:18 +0030 Message-ID: <4d8e3fd30808221203r1630addaodb87c0a8b34f0fd2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080822174655.GP23334@one.firstfloor.org> <32541b130808221056l75a3fd6bsa6c7933a1c3da60f@mail.gmail.com> <20080822183129.GR23334@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Avery Pennarun" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Andi Kleen" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 22 21:04:58 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 1KWbw5-0001e6-2I for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:04:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754596AbYHVTDW (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:03:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753386AbYHVTDW (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:03:22 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f29.google.com ([209.85.217.29]:47194 "EHLO mail-gx0-f29.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752106AbYHVTDU (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:03:20 -0400 Received: by gxk10 with SMTP id 10so948047gxk.13 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=6aRcbBXtbyISjbYcum1ueI/ofcMbqFcH/94R+edv9sM=; b=t+nw5Amv5/ZOm2LQScj4mDXMWTiOaQTKDG1t8fw0eFvWuIt3Xc4zjnLkkR/9oiiVsJ F0xPzmwGGm/Q4IZs9oTDEyfCLca99VGrPg40a6Pq/Uq4hdi0GB8qMq4tqiOfSTF9Ctny rdihJLJcrSLlM2fOolI/nFZU81nphTJjPU/lY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=SJIii8MSpXL3ZrM3ZCcw+np7tb6Dt3lansDs2blrUOgqEShR6iXccAIA/c9GIORlcZ p4XBAQx1A9/pSNDaK5xDPko/NF/tLBJhKwEAEEjchsZcVyd/KDhOODy29JTQJDO5FhCX HZ5Ou/FcjB8LzaiyyJvMd2llNnFWM+9gt6BmM= Received: by 10.142.132.2 with SMTP id f2mr530075wfd.22.1219431798892; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.194.8 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080822183129.GR23334@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 8/22/08, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:56:39PM -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> > But I presume that's a reasonable common usage. Would it >> > make sense to have some standard git sub command that does that? >> > ("get latest state of remote branch, doing what it takes to get it") >> > Or is there already one that I missed? >> >> Isn't that just >> >> git fetch somewhere branchname >> git reset --hard FETCH_HEAD >> >> ? > > My script right now does. > > git fetch origin > git fetch --tags origin > git remote update > git checkout master > git reset --hard origin/master > why the two fetch? isn't git remote update sufficient? ciao, -- Paolo http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/