Re: "git pull . <branch>" versus "git merge <branch>"
- From
- Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>
- Date
- Jun 12, 2008, 00:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <48507454.2070506@keyaccess.nl>
- In-Reply-To
- <237967ef0806111449i7d23976dxa3290eece06b5876@mail.gmail.com>
On 11-06-08 23:49, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> For me, git-pull is that additional command, and using git-pull . > <branch> to merge feels really really strange. Why would I pull > something I already have?
For what it's worth I (as thread starter) agree with this. At least in my mind local and remote branches are very different and I do not mind having to "fetch" the latter first before merging (nor combine the two through a "pull").
I can see the reason for the other viewpoint as well since it emphasises a point about local and remote branches _not_ being very different after all but that's more a symmetry to the implementor than it is to a user I feel. For the user, local and remote branches just are different.
And as such I feel it actually helps to just use "merge". Thanks for the answers everyone -- this was a matter of a user worrying that he wasn't getting it...
Rene