Re: Request re git status

From: Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 8, 2017, 07:44 UTC
Message-ID: <CAJZjrdU1qz9H5P0uB-PnpN_WoEtRVA9SQN_5pBPJzvzsYVby_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xqg9b+49P6bO65E0q4a87BkNL76XGiUjcMg+UmDcU=WPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think
>>> about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that happening
>>> automatically, it helps teach the model to the user. If it happened in
>>> the background then the user might not be confronted with the
>>> distributed nature of the tool.
>>
>> I agree. But I think there is some room for improvement. Do we know
>> when the last fetch of the relevant upstream is? If we do, and if it's
>> been "a while" (configurable), then we should make a note suggesting
>> fetching again in git-status.
>>
>> This is not exactly my own idea. Gentoo's portage (i.e. friends with
>> apt-get, yum... if you're not familiar) also has this explicit "fetch"
>> operation, which is called sync. If you haven't sync'd in a while and
>> try to install new package, you get a friendly message (that helps me
>> a couple times).
>> --
>> Duy

Arch's pacman -S sync operation also has the -y flag, which updates the local package databases, and can be used in conjunction with the -u upgrade flag to upgrade repositories.

> That seems reasonable.
>
> Thanks,
> Jake

To be clear, I'm not advocating changing the *default* behavior of git status; I agree that it wouldn't make sense. And although personally I constantly update remotes manually (to the point where I abhor using pull), I do think there's room to add an option to "fetch the remote-tracking branch" to git status.