Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Oct 25, 2007, 10:12 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710251108330.25221@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <47204ECA.7040309@op5.se>

Hi,

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> > 
> > > Conceptually, I don't think it'll be any problem what so ever 
> > > telling anyone that the branches that aren't currently checked out 
> > > get merged automatically only if they result in a fast-forward.
> > 
> > It would be a matter of seconds until someone asks "why only 
> > fast-forwards? Would it not be _much_ better to merge _always_?  
> > Stupid git."
> > 
> > And all because the concept of "local" vs "remote" was blurred.
> 
> It's already blurred, since we have git-pull instead of just git-fetch.

Huh? How is "I ask git pull to fetch the remote branch, and merge it into my local branch" a blurring of local vs remote branch?

The local branch is still the local branch where it is _my_ responsibility to update or change anything. The remote branch is not. If at all, I can push -- iff it fast-forwards.

The fact that you can set up local mirroring branches (with "git remote add") which are only updated via "git fetch" is _no_ blurring of the concepts: we make it quite explicit that you cannot check them out. They are not local branches.

Hth, Dscho