Re: Pull is Evil
- From
Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>
- Date
- May 2, 2014, 07:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140502074027.GB6288@inner.h.apk.li>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqa9b2egcy.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:01:49 +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote: ...
> I didn't mean "replace 'pull' with 'update' everywhere". I meant > "Introduce 'update' that lets integrate your history into that from > the remote, which is to integrate in a direction opposite from how > 'pull' does".
That still doesn't quite solve my problem. If I'm tracking origin/master in a local master branch, I can just use 'git pull' to get my 'feature' branch (which is named master) updated to the current state of the origin. This amounts to 'integrating' origin/master into my master.
When I finally want to deliver and push to origin/master, I put on the integrator's hat, and I cat do a 'git update' that will do the merge in reverse, and push the result to origin/master. The result will look like origin pulled my master branch into his.
Problem is that whether to use pull or update depends on whether I intend to push afterwards; and additionally, if I can push fast-forward without needing to 'git update' the integration into origin/master will look weird.
(Oh, and please don't name it 'update' - we have an important alias of that name.)
Andreas
-- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800