Re: git pull for update of netdev fails.

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Sep 20, 2006, 16:26 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609200920290.4388@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609200915550.4388@g5.osdl.org>

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 
> That's a really important point. You can trivially say "I don't care". 
> It's literally one extra character. But it should be the _user_ that says 
> so, not the SCM.
> 
> The whole point of the SCM is to care.

Btw, the "+" also protects you from local errors.

Let's say that you've committed some work of your own onto a branch that you happen to follow. Guess what? By default, git refuses to throw your hard work away.

This is not just a random thing. It is in fact one of the very core issues of having multiple people work together on the same remote repo. We don't do it very much (because it's often easier for everybody to have their own), but the "CVS workflow" with one common repository is another example why WE MUST NOT JUST RESET THE HEADS!

Think about it. You and somebody else works on a common branch, using a common source repo. When you "fetch", you want to get all the work that the other person has done. But you sure as hell don't want that work to overwrite your own work.

So what does git do? It notices if you have a local commit on that shared branch (because it no longer fast-forwards to the other end), and it tells you exactly that: it says that branch so-and-so doesn't fast-forward, and refuses to overwrite it.

What would you do? You should in that case switch to the offending branch, AND DO A MERGE of your work and the work you shared with another person, and then push out the result.

So the _last_ thing you want to happen is for your work to be silently just overwritten.

Trust me, git does the right thing here. No ifs, buts or maybes about it.

			Linus