Request re git status
- From
- Ron Pero <rpero@magnadev.com>
- Date
- Feb 6, 2017, 23:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CANOj2JG5VuDtS30PfOrZ=4q8pTv_frY7=p+0g=UW3yV6ev+1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi
I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote.
This page explains it well.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27828404/why-does-git-status-show-branch-is-up-to-date-when-changes-exist-upstream
That page also contains a good suggestion:
Why ... not design it to [optionally] DO a fetch and THEN declare whether it is up to date? Or change the message to tell what it really did, e.g. "Your branch was up-to-date with 'origin/master' when last checked at {timestamp}"? Or even just say, "Do a fetch to find out whether your branch is up to date"?
Thanks, and best wishes,
Ron