From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Damien Robert Subject: Re: Summary of the problems with git pull Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 20:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <5366db742d494_18f9e4b308aa@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 06 22:37:23 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Whm44-0001yQ-6x for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 22:34:12 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752358AbaEFUeH (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 16:34:07 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:49850 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751228AbaEFUeF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 16:34:05 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WhltL-0005tX-Dm for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 22:23:07 +0200 Received: from phare.normalesup.org ([129.199.129.80]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 May 2014 22:23:07 +0200 Received: from damien.olivier.robert+gmane by phare.normalesup.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 May 2014 22:23:07 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: phare.normalesup.org X-Newsreader: Flrn (0.9.20070704) X-Start-date: Tue, 06 May 2014 22:00:36 +0200 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Felipe Contreras wrote in message <5366db742d494_18f9e4b308aa@nysa.notmuch>: > == git update == > > Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This > command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it > could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse. Thanks for the nice summary. As a user, I am very much in favor of adding a `git update` command. In fact I already have a ruby script that does such a thing (fast-forward all my local branches that have an upstream configured), so it would be nice to have it directly in git core.