Re: Useful tracking branches and auto merging

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 4, 2010, 20:57 UTC
Message-ID: <20101004205725.GJ6466@burratino>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikkXdDepdeOY4MZvgfCEgX69Tx6d0-QS-g3bWK-@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

>> git merge @{u}
>
> Interesting, I don't find anything like that in the documentation.

The @{upstream} notation is documented in gitrevisions(7). But yes, a more prominent mention (maybe some examples?) would be nice.

> Moreover, wouldn't it make sense to make 'git merge' = 'git merge
> @{u}'?

I think so, yes. :)

Show 7 quoted lines

>> Maybe 'git pull --all' could be taught to eventually do this?  That
>> would be incompatible with its current behavior of fetching everything
>> and merging some random branch, but I don't think anyone is relying
>> on that.
>
> Maybe, I feel 'git pull' is for single branches or repos, whereas 'git
> remote update' is pretty clear it's for all the repos

If I remember correctly, the current status is:

 - 'git remote' is for adding, removing, and pruning remotes
 - 'git fetch <remote>' and 'git fetch --all' are for updating them, and
 - 'git remote update' is for backward compatibility.