From: Martin von Zweigbergk Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 05:26:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use "git merge" instead of "git pull ." Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20130825041912.GD2882@elie.Belkin> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Thomas Ackermann wrote: >> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt >> @@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from. >> <>; instead, your branch will just be >> updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.) >> >> -The `git pull` command can also be given `.` as the "remote" repository, >> -in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so >> -the commands >> - >> -------------------------------------------------- >> -$ git pull . branch >> -$ git merge branch >> -------------------------------------------------- >> - >> -are roughly equivalent. The former is actually very commonly used. >> - > > I wonder if it would make sense to say they simply *are* equivalent. > I.e., what differences are there between those two commands, and could > "git pull" be tweaked to eliminate them? One difference is that "git pull" can be configured to rebase. > [...] >> @@ -2259,7 +2248,7 @@ When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the >> "test" branch in preparation to make it public: I realize that "pull" here is not necessarily about the command, but perhaps it would still make sense to change it?