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

Re: "git pull . <branch>" versus "git merge <branch>"

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Jun 11, 2008, 23:01 UTC
Message-ID
<7v3anjbmov.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To
<484F2174.9020508@keyaccess.nl>
Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Good day.
>
> The manpages seem to be making somewhat of a point of mentioning "git
> pull . <branch>" as the way to merge a local branch into the current
> one but a simple "git merge <branch>" seems to work well. Is there a
> difference?
There isn't any.

"git pull . this_branch" is just a natural and logical consequence that you can fetch and merge a branch B from remote U with "git pull $U $B".

"git merge that_branch" exists and useful because people on average merge local branches more than they fetch and merge from remote repository.

Previous: Rene HermanNext: Rene Herman
Message 15 of 16 in “"git pull . <branch>" versus "git merge <branch>"”
  1. Rene HermanJun 11, 2008
  2. David SymondsJun 11, 2008
  3. Rene HermanJun 11, 2008
  4. Miklos VajnaJun 11, 2008
  5. Rene HermanJun 11, 2008
  6. Paolo BonziniJun 11, 2008
  7. Rene HermanJun 11, 2008
  8. Paolo BonziniJun 11, 2008
  9. Daniel BarkalowJun 11, 2008
  10. Brandon CaseyJun 11, 2008
  11. Daniel BarkalowJun 11, 2008
  12. Brandon CaseyJun 11, 2008
  13. Mikael MagnussonJun 11, 2008
  14. Rene HermanJun 12, 2008
  15. Junio C HamanoJun 11, 2008
  16. Rene HermanJun 12, 2008

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.