git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename

From
Björn Steinbrink <b.steinbrink@gmx.de>
Date
Oct 21, 2009, 11:57 UTC
Message-ID
<20091021115740.GA25049@atjola.homenet>
In-Reply-To
<alpine.LNX.2.00.0910202310070.14365@iabervon.org>
On 2009.10.21 00:22:18 -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> 
> > 3) User expects "pull" to update all branch heads that have a configured
> > upstream
> > 
> > 08:31 	dimsuz 	hi guys! suppose i'm currently on master. then run git
> > 		fetch. which delivers updates to master and other
> > 		branches. I don't merge anything, but do checkout some
> > 		branch (which is not master).  Question: will these new
> > 		updates get into this branch automatically after i check
> > 		it out? question2: will branch master contain those
> > 		updates when i ckeck it out later?
> > 08:32 	Circuitsoft 	dimsuz. After a fetch, no.
> > 08:33 	Circuitsoft 	However, if you pull, any branches that were set
> > 			up as local tracking branches will get updated.
> > 08:33 	Circuitsoft 	Otherwise, only remote tracking branches will be
> > 			updated.
> > 
> > http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2009-10-20#l969
> > (No idea about that one, have seen that once before, but it's definitely
> > not even remotely as common as the others)
> 
> I'd guess that's due to having local branches with no local changes, just 
> to avoid detached HEAD, and therefore thinking it's normal to have a bunch 
> of local branches that could be updated without merges. But I'm on a crazy 
> "everybody really wants detached HEAD and is needlessly scared" kick, and 
> I'm probably reading too much into it.

Just to clarify: I didn't mean the question (which I didn't really understand) in this case, but the answer from Circuitsoft (second to last line). But maybe you also meant that? The question confuses me enough not to be able to follow.

Show 34 quoted lines
> > 4) User expects "pull" to create branches
> > 
> > 07:25 	fynn 	Hey, I just pulled a branch from remote, and I don't see
> > 		it in "git branch"
> > 07:25 	doener 	fynn: if you "pull" that means "fetch this and merge it
> > 		to what I have checked out"
> > 07:25 	fynn 	doener: hm, I just did "git pull" and it showed the new
> > 		branch
> > 07:26 	fynn 	but I don't see it in my branches...
> > 07:26 	fynn 	doener: should I create that branch as a tracking branch
> > 		first?
> > 07:26 	doener 	fynn: you're looking at "git branch -r" or "git branch
> > 		-a", right?
> > 07:26 	fynn 	doener: yeah, I'm seeing it in origin/foo, but not
> > 		local.
> > 07:26 	doener 	fynn: the "git fetch" should have created a remote
> > 		tracking branch, as usual, not a local branch head
> > 		(which would be shown by just "git branch")
> > 07:27 	fynn 	doener: OK, what should I do to create it locally then?
> > 07:28 	doener 	fynn: just the usual "git branch foo origin/foo", or to
> > 		checkout at the same time: "git checkout -b foo
> > 		origin/foo" or "git checkout -t origin/foo" (shortcut)
> > 
> > http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2009-10-19#l830
> > (Note how my "fetch this and merge it" is actually inaccurate for just
> > "git pull", there is no "this" and that case. I took "pulled a branch"
> > to mean that he did "git pull <remote> <branch>", which wouldn't have
> > created/update the remote tracking branch [or did patches for that go
> > in? I lost track...])
> 
> That sounds like a real converse of "push", including creating like-named 
> local branches. Or, perhaps, this is someone expecting that "pull" is like 
> "clone" in creating an initial local branch with the name and value of a 
> specified remote branch.

Reading that one again, I realize that I've still been confused by the "pulled a branch". What happened was that the user did "git pull", which ran "git fetch <remote>", which fetched a new branch head and has shown that. At that point, the user (and me) got confused for maybe two reasons:

a) He didn't clearly distinguish between the fetch and the merge part. The new branch wasn't pulled, but just fetched. That caused the user to think that he "pulled the branch" (wrong terminology), which in term confused me (wrong use-case assumed).

b) He expected local branch heads to be created, instead of remote tracking branches. If my memory doesn't play tricks on me, that's actually not to be expected from that specific user (I think we told him about remote tracking branches before, and the last part of the conversation actually suggests that, too). If I don't forget, I'll try to get feedback from him the next time he's around.

Show 19 quoted lines
> > 5) User possibly expecting "pull" to be able to act as "reset --hard"
> > 
> > 21:01 	aidan 	What do I do about this: html/config/core.php: needs
> > 		update
> > 21:02 	aidan 	git pull (gives that)
> > 21:02 	Ilari 	aidan: You have uncommitted changes to that file...
> > 21:15 	aidan 	Ilari: how can I just pull master and overwrite any
> > 		changes?
> > 
> > http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2009-10-18#l2130
> > (I'm not sure about that one, "overwrite any changes" might mean "drop
> > uncommitted changes and merge" or "just get me the remote's state,
> > dropping my commits and uncommitted changes". Most of the time I've seen
> > similar requests, the user wanted the latter).
> 
> So I think that's a desire for "git checkout ." first of all (with the 
> assumption that the content without modifications has to come from 
> somewhere remote). I don't know what's up with people not wanting to save 
> their commits, though.

You haven't seen the multitude of "I have merge conflicts and just want to take theirs/mine" requests. That often gets more weird than just "drop my commits" ;-)

Show 18 quoted lines
> > 6) User says "pull" but probably means "fetch"
> > 
> > 14:08 	Alien_Freak 	once I have a clone of a repo I know you can do
> > 			a checkout tag but is there anyway to pull just
> > 			the tag?
> > 
> > http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2009-10-16#l1664
> > (There was no answer, thus it's hard to tell, but I guess he wanted
> > something like:
> > git init; git fetch --no-tags url tag <tag>; git checkout <tag>
> > At least I'm quite sure he didn't mean "pull" as in "git pull")
> 
> I don't know; you can actually do:
> 
> $ git init; git pull --no-tags <url> tag <tag>
> 
> It updates the master branch and working directory from (nothing) to the 
> fetched tag.

Hm, yeah, that works (didn't think of it), but it's a rather special case. Teaching that might lead to misunderstandings about what "pull" does, I think. It would look somewhat like "fetch + reset --hard".

Show 13 quoted lines
> > 8) "reset --hard" again
> > 
> > 20:10 	roger_padactor 	i commited then did a pull how do i get back to
> > 			my commit. the pull over wrote the files
> > 20:11 	merlin83 	roger_padactor: you can't, pull == fetch + hard
> > 			reset to latest commit
> > 
> > http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2009-10-14#l2306
> > (Someone being told that pull is fetch + reset --hard is actually new to
> > me. Only saw that as an expectation previously.)
> 
> That's odd. How could you not notice that it doesn't actually do that, 
> even if you try to get it to?

Hm? roger_padactor noticed that "pull" changed his files and wants to go back. And merlin83 says that that is impossible because pull supposedly does reset --hard. There's nothing in there (I could see) that suggests that anyone tried to make "pull" do "reset --hard".

merlin83 basically made three mistakes, I think:
1) Assume that roger_padactor was talking about uncommitted changes
2) Assume that pull is fetch + reset --hard
3) Assume that you can't undo a reset --hard for committed changes

(OK, 3) isn't actually valid when you consider 1), but 1) is so invalid that I kept 3). After all, "pull" would complain about a dirty tree...)

> Actually, I wonder if the right formula is update = fetch + checkout. 
> There are a lot of people (IMHO) want "git fetch origin; git checkout 
> origin/master", and I think their first idea is "git update", but that 
> doesn't exist, and they find "pull" as the closest thing.

That has a precondition that the user is already using a detached HEAD. Otherwise that fetch + checkout would likely mean that the get baffled when they do: git checkout master git update git checkout foo git checkout master

Seeing that "master" is out of date "again".

I agree though, that users might look for "git update" and because it is missing, they just look for the closest thing. Adding Junio's statement that users seem to want recipes instead of flexibility (and seeing "update" as just "get me new stuff from upstream" without meaning any specific method of updating), I think that "git update" could be a "recipe collection" tool. I'll hack that into my proof-of-concept thing (which I hope to have ready for a RFC next week).

Björn
Previous: Daniel BarkalowNext: Daniel Barkalow
Message 13 of 32 in “[RFC] pull/fetch rename”
  1. Thomas RastOct 20, 2009
  2. Wesley J. LandakerOct 20, 2009
  3. Junio C HamanoOct 20, 2009
  4. Thomas RastOct 20, 2009
  5. Junio C HamanoOct 20, 2009
  6. Wesley J. LandakerOct 21, 2009
  7. Junio C HamanoOct 20, 2009
  8. Nanako ShiraishiOct 20, 2009
  9. Thomas RastOct 20, 2009
  10. Daniel BarkalowOct 20, 2009
  11. Björn SteinbrinkOct 21, 2009
  12. Daniel BarkalowOct 21, 2009
  13. Björn SteinbrinkOct 21, 2009
  14. Daniel BarkalowOct 21, 2009
  15. Junio C HamanoOct 21, 2009
  16. Clemens BuchacherOct 21, 2009
  17. modernize fetch/merge/pull examplesClemens Buchacher, Oct 21, 2009
  18. Junio C HamanoOct 21, 2009
  19. git-merge: forbid fast-forward and up-to-date when --no-commit is givenJunio C Hamano, Oct 21, 2009
  20. Nanako ShiraishiOct 22, 2009
  21. Junio C HamanoOct 22, 2009
  22. git-merge: imply --no-ff when --no-commit is givenJunio C Hamano, Oct 21, 2009
  23. Clemens BuchacherOct 22, 2009
  24. Thomas RastOct 22, 2009
  25. Thomas RastOct 22, 2009
  26. Mike HommeyOct 21, 2009
  27. Junio C HamanoOct 21, 2009
  28. Mike HommeyOct 21, 2009
  29. Junio C HamanoOct 21, 2009
  30. Jeff KingOct 21, 2009
  31. Jeff KingOct 21, 2009
  32. Junio C HamanoOct 24, 2009

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.