git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: merge confusion

From
AJAllen Johnson <akjohnson78@gmail.com>
Date
Jul 31, 2009, 13:32 UTC
Message-ID
<6786ed4f0907310632t2435f7d9y9151febea7844ca@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<24755682.post@talk.nabble.com>

I think in this case you should do a `git fetch` instead. Doing a pull is the same as performing a fetch and merge.

With a `fetch`, your remote branch is up-to-date while your tracking branch is left untouched. You can later check the differences between the two branches and merge when you're ready.

$ git fetch # update remote branch heads $ git diff origin/branchname # show what is different between your local branch and the remote $ git merge origin/branchname # only when you're ready

For me, it's easier to keep my personal branches separate by using a topic branch that doesn't track a remote branch. Then, optionally, merge in differences from whatever remote tracking branches as needed.

$ git branch -t development origin/development # tracking remote development branch $ git checkout -b mystuff development # my personal stuff

Now a `git pull` won't affect `mystuff`.
Allen

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:35 AM, thepurpleblob<howardsmiller@googlemail.com> wrote:

Show 30 quoted lines
>
> I had some unexpected behaviour doing a merge today. I wonder if anybody can
> tell me where I have gone wrong. This is the sequence...
>
> * clone a remote repo
> * created a local branch to track one of the remote branches
> * did work on the local branch and then created another 'feature' branch
> from that
> * time elapsed and at some point(s) I pulled from the remote but did not
> merge the original local branch
> * finished feature, checkout local branch and merge in feature.
>
> What I didn't expect is that all the subsequent changes on the tracked
> remote branch got merged in too. Which I didn't want.
>
> So the question is - is that what's supposed to happen (ie. if you do any
> merge the tracked branch 'fast forwards' the remote) and, if so, if I want a
> branch that stays a branch (doesn't ever merge with the remote) how would I
> do that?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/merge-confusion-tp24755682p24755682.html
> Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Previous: thepurpleblobNext: Sean Estabrooks
Message 2 of 5 in “merge confusion”
  1. thepurpleblobJul 31, 2009
  2. Allen JohnsonJul 31, 2009
  3. Sean EstabrooksJul 31, 2009
  4. Tim MazidOct 28, 2009
  5. Alex RiesenOct 28, 2009

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.