From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Bader Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge: default to @{upstream} Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:55:49 +0900 Message-ID: <87hbcp25wa.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: <1296231457-18780-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Nieder To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 31 03:04:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pjj8L-0005vg-NA for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:04:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752552Ab1AaCEj (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:04:39 -0500 Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.74]:48971 "EHLO smtp12.dentaku.gol.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752400Ab1AaCEi (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:04:38 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 521 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:04:38 EST Received: from 218.33.195.219.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.33.195.219] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) (envelope-from ) id 1Pjizf-000088-AM; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:55:51 +0900 Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 069A4DF93; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:55:50 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <1296231457-18780-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:17:37 +0200") X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Felipe Contreras writes: > So 'git merge' is 'git merge @{upstream}' instead of 'git merge -h'; > it's better to do something useful. I totally agree -- this would be a good change[*] -- but this suggestion has been made before, and always gets shot down for vaguely silly reasons... I often do "git fetch; ; git pull". I think this is probably not a rare pattern, when one is working with other people via a shared upstream. The git-pull is obviously slightly risky because another change could have happened after the fetch, but I use that instead of "git-merge" because git-pull's defaults make it very convenient ... and _usually_ there's no issue... If git-merge had proper defaults (as you suggest), it would be exactly as convenient as git-pull (and _less_ dangerous), so I'd use that instead. [and, no, saying "you can add an alias!" is not a reasonable answer -- git should be convenient by default!] -Miles -- Hers, pron. His.