From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:50:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Minor annoyance with git push
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