Re: Minor annoyance with git push
- From
Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 8, 2008, 04:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <46a038f90802072050s46ffe305mcffffa068511e3b8@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <46a038f90802072044u3329fd33w575c689cba2917ee@mail.gmail.com>
On Feb 8, 2008 5:44 PM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> None of these "rejected" branches have anything _new_, they > are just stale. Nothing new to say.
And I guess the natural follow up question is: would it make sense to tell git pull to do a "merge" for not-checked-out branches where we can safely tell that the resulting "merge" will actually be a fast-forward?
Would that be unsafe in any way?
Because when I "git checkout bla-stale-branch" to help a fellow developer again, I have to remember to "git merge origin/bla-stale-branch" to get a much needed fast-forward before starting to work.
[ Or we could be more proactive at deleting unused local heads. But that's a bit of silly maintenance just to keep things tidy, that git could keep tidy ;-) ... ]
cheers,
m