From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:19:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use "git merge" instead of "git pull ."
Message-ID: <20130825041912.GD2882@elie.Belkin>
In-Reply-To: <694030462.1090937.1377329263413.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net>

Thomas Ackermann wrote:
> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
> @@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from.
>  <<fast-forwards,fast-forward>>; instead, your branch will just be
>  updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.)
>  
> -The `git pull` command can also be given `.` as the "remote" repository,
> -in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so
> -the commands
> -
> --------------------------------------------------
> -$ git pull . branch
> -$ git merge branch
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
> -are roughly equivalent.  The former is actually very commonly used.
> -

I wonder if it would make sense to say they simply *are* equivalent.
I.e., what differences are there between those two commands, and could
"git pull" be tweaked to eliminate them?

I agree that the historical "The former is actually very commonly
used" ought to go.  It wouldn't too relevant for someone learning to
use git even if it were still true. ;-)

[...]
> @@ -2259,7 +2248,7 @@ When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the
>  "test" branch in preparation to make it public:
>  
>  -------------------------------------------------
> -$ git checkout test && git pull . speed-up-spinlocks
> +$ git checkout test && git merge speed-up-spinlocks
>  -------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan