Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:39:06PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:44:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > How about doing this? The difference this time around is that
> > if you have non-wildcard refspec listed first, which usually
> > is the case for people with established git workflow with
> > existing repositories, we use the old-and-proven rule to
> > merge the first set of refs. An earlier round botched this
> > completely by basing the logic on lack of branch.*.merge,
> > which broke for many people.
>
> Updated man page assuming that change; does this look any better?
Also, resend of the following patch:
--b.
[PATCH] Documentation: remove master:origin example from pull-fetch-param.txt
This is no longer a useful example.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
---
Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt | 4 ----
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
index e852f41..8d4e950 100644
--- a/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
+++ b/Documentation/pull-fetch-param.txt
@@ -39,10 +39,6 @@ checkout -b my-B remote-B`). Run `git fetch` to keep track of
the progress of the remote side, and when you see something new
on the remote branch, merge it into your development branch with
`git pull . remote-B`, while you are on `my-B` branch.
-The common `Pull: master:origin` mapping of a remote `master`
-branch to a local `origin` branch, which is then merged to a
-local development branch, again typically named `master`, is made
-when you run `git clone` for you to follow this pattern.
+
[NOTE]
There is a difference between listing multiple <refspec>
--
1.5.0.rc0.gac28