Re: Minor annoyance with git push

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 8, 2008, 11:52 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802081151170.11591@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90802072050s46ffe305mcffffa068511e3b8@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On Feb 8, 2008 5:44 PM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  None of these "rejected" branches have anything _new_, they are just 
> > stale. Nothing new to say.
> 
> And I guess the natural follow up question is: would it make sense to 
> tell git pull to do a "merge" for not-checked-out branches where we can 
> safely tell that the resulting "merge" will actually be a fast-forward?

That question comes up pretty often, I think. But you need a working directory to resolve conflicts for merges. You only have one, though.

So no, I think it is saner to have tracking branches (which are updated anyway), and local branches. And once you're done with a branch, you simply push it, and then delete it (you will still have the result in the tracking branch).

Ciao, Dscho