Re: Strange branch merging.

From: Adam Panayis <adam@movency.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2009, 12:40 UTC
Message-ID: <499418A4.9060401@movency.com>
In-Reply-To: <E65A809A-65AD-4755-8AA7-32AA11C9AB5A@frim.nl>

Pieter, thanks for your advice.

I am never using the push command here.

Box A has branches master and blah. On Box B I just want to pull branch master.

When I try to do that on box B I get the master branch from box A but I get the changes made to branch blah on box A.

I do not understand why, on box B, the master branch is showing changes made to the blah branch on box A. (Yet on box A the changes to the blah branch are not shown in the master)

Apologies for my babbling.

Adam

Pieter de Bie wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Adam Panayis wrote:
>
>> Once this is done I double check my branches and it shows I still 
>> only have the master. Perfect. However, when I check the file I 
>> edited on my local machine on the blah branch, the changes are there.
>>
>> Am I fundamentally misunderstanding the correct usage of git? Is this 
>> result expected?
>
> Yes, git pull will never change anything on the remote side. You 
> should use 'git push' for that. But, you shouldn't push to repository 
> with a working directory unless you know what you're doing -- read 
> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#non-bare for that.
>
> - Pieter