Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Oct 26, 2007, 07:53 UTC
Message-ID: <47219CFD.3010409@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <D38E4717-CF67-4897-983E-2B45CA217C11@zib.de>

Steffen Prohaska wrote:

Show 46 quoted lines

> 
> On Oct 25, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>>
>>> With that in mind, how about making "git checkout foo", after
>>> foo is set up thusly, to show:
>>>     git log --pretty=oneline --left-right origin/pu...foo
>>> if (and only if) they have diverged?  Then you can deal with the
>>> staleness of local tracking fork 'foo' in any way you want.
>>> You could even go one step further and make this "checkout foo",
>>> in addition to or instead of showing the above left-right log,
>>>  - automatically run "git merge origin/pu" if it is a
>>>    fast-forward, and say it did _not_ run that merge if it is
>>>    not a fast-forward;
>>>  - automatically run "git merge origin/pu" always, even if it is
>>>    not a fast-forward;
>>>  - automatically run "git rebase origin/pu" always;
>>> Would that make your life easier?
>>
>> That it would, except the confusion would then be that it's automatically
>> rebased for the branches one currently hasn't got checked out while 
>> pulling,
>> and the branch that *is* checked out gets merged (crazy, yes), so those
>> who prefer the rebase would get what they want by doing something 
>> completely
>> bonkers, such as:
>>
>> git checkout -b just-gonna-pull HEAD^
>> git pull
>> git checkout whatever-other-branch-they-were-on
>>
>> (yes, "aggresively ignorant", I think Ted said in an earlier mail)
>>
>> It'd probably be better to go with Dscho's suggestion, although I'm 
>> not quite
>> sure what that was any more. It involved automagical rebasing on fetch 
>> or pull
>> though.
> 
> git pull's automagic and the automatic behaviour of git checkout
> proposed by Junio should always do the same. git pull should
> be changed to act a if your three commands were fused into it
> (but obviously implemented differently).
>

I think it would be better to implement it as a different command that would do all those weird and tedious dwim things that suit a particular kind of developer, but only so long as those operations succeed without conflicts.

So for example the flow could go something like this; --- read_branch_merge_config();

git fetch

if prefetch(local == remote_tracking)
	set ref local to match ref remote_tracking;
else if (--safe-rebase)
	try_rebase local onto remote_tracking;
---

It's such a common operation that I really do think it's worth having support for it. Perhaps with a "--try-rebase" option to git-pull.

If we then add a a "--push-after-pull" (to work on the current branch only) we have the "git sync" alias readily available to accommodate the average reluctant git user, and I'm sure gui hackers could do wonders with it, especially on windows, where people seem accustomed to a lot of things happening when clicking a single button.

Show 6 quoted lines

> I think teaching "git checkout" a dwim mode is quite
> interesting.  The required work to bring a local branch
> up-to-date with a remote branch is deferred until really needed.
> An then "git checkout" does the right thing. A lot of automagic
> but definitely intriguing.
>

Yup, and it can be done with a post-checkout hook (which I notice there are no examples for, so I've added that to my ever-growing todo).

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231