Re: Default behavior of git pull

From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Date: May 31, 2021, 11:27 UTC
Message-ID: <92682abb-3062-4613-399d-a3279afb8f0b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a97ac78-f405-2dca-2998-f03637cc8255@gmail.com>

Hi Mathias,

On 31/05/21 16.18, Mathias Kunter wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Wouldn't it make sense if "git pull" would by default also pull the 
> branch with the same name from the remote, in case no upstream is 
> configured?
> 
> If I can push to a remote with a simple "git push", then I'd also expect 
> to be able to pull from that same remote with a simple "git pull".
> 
> Does anything speak against this?
> 
> Example:
> 
>    git clone $url
>    git checkout -b fix-1
>    # do commits
>    git push           # push to origin/fix-1 (works)
>    git push origin    # push to origin/fix-1 (works)
>    # other people push to origin/fix-1
>    git pull           # pull from origin/fix-1 (fails)
>    git pull origin    # pull from origin/fix-1 (fails)

IME, I did git fetch first before I did git pull, unless I have repos that I didn't intentionally want to contribute to (just collecting them). When I choose to work, I always create a branch, then submit PR/patches from that against mainline.

Since you do centralized workflow like above, I advise you to integrate from remote with git fetch + git merge.

And you asked whether plain git pull can work. It is yes, provided that you don't do any local work on remote-tracking branches (such as mainline or hotfixes).

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara