From: Ben Knoble Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:56:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] doc: git-pull: clarify DESCRIPTION section Message-ID: <0149FFFE-608D-48F0-A80F-D2B76D943F9B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: > Le 15 oct. 2025 à 09:13, Julia Evans via GitGitGadget a écrit : > > I got feedback from 15 Git users on the current git pull man page, using > this tool: https://text-feedback.wizardzines.com/git-pull. > > My goals here are to be clear about the relationship between git pull and > fetch/merge/rebase etc, make sure users know the current default for git > pull (--ff-only) since some folks still remember the old default, and to > help users quickly figure out what command they need to run to > merge/rebase/squash/etc. > > I've taken a pretty aggressive approach because I think it's possible to > have a pretty short and focused DESCRIPTION section here while keeping the > most important info. Open to hearing that I've removed too much. > > This references the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section from > https://lore.kernel.org/git/0ec629d4037bf5d1ccc248ca1bbd87ccc08119a3.1757703309.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/ > , so if that isn't merged I'll need to revisit the approach here. > > changes in v2: > > * Add "(excluding merge options)" to clarify which options are passed to > git fetch (from Chris's review) > * Say that git pull will by default merge the upstream branch. (from > Chris's review) > * Add some links to the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, and to the > section in git fetch, to make it easier to navigate in the HTML version > of the docs at least. The situation where we repeat the part > in git fetch is weird but I don't have a better idea for how to handle it > right now. The UPSTREAM BRANCHES links are currently failing the > documentation tests, but should pass once the patch series that adds that > is merged. (from Ben's review) > > changes in v3: > > Change "fails if the local branch has diverged" to say "remote branch has > diverged", from Junio's review. > > I did not come up with a better idea for a word to use than "integrate" so > left that alone. I’m happy with this version ; anyone else ?