Re: So git pull is shorthand for what exactly?

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 17:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> man git-pull sayeth
>>>
>>>     In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by
>>>     git merge FETCH_HEAD.
>>>
>>> However, I just tried that and it failed rather spectacularly.  How do
>>> you *really* update your local repo without an extra git fetch step?
>
>> If you have a "local copy of the remote" setup already that's been
>> updated already, you can to the merge directly:
>>     git merge <branch>
>> where a branch would normally be something like:
>>     origin/master
>> or
>>     origin/REL9_0STABLE
>
>> That will make a merge commit.  Another option, if you're trying to
>> keep linear development would be:
>>     git rebase origin/master
>
> Yeah, I don't want a merge.  I have these config entries (as per our
> wiki recommendations):
>
> [branch "master"]
>        rebase = true
> [branch]
>        autosetuprebase = always
>
> and what I really want is to update all my workdirs the same way git
> pull would do, but not have to repeat the "git fetch" part.  This isn't
> only a matter of saving network time, it's that I don't necessarily want
> the branch heads moving underneath me for branches I already updated.
>
> BTW, I've noticed that "git push" will reject an attempt to push an
> update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even
> if I am not trying to push anything for those branches.  That's
> pretty annoying too; is there a way around that?

I admit I haven't tried it, but won't that get fixed if you push just
the current branch? E.g. "git push origin master"?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/