threads / discuss / 14073

"git-pull --no-commit" should imply --no-ff...?

Subject: "git-pull --no-commit" should imply --no-ff...?

## tl;dr

4 messages between Jun 21, 2008 and Jun 22, 2008.

replies: 3people: 3as markdown or json

Stefan Richter· Jun 21, 2008, 14:08 UTC · lore

Hi list,

trying "git pull --no-commit . foo" for the first time, I was confused that --no-commit was a no-op when the pull resulted in a fast-forward. I.e. HEAD advanced the whole chain of commits to foo. I expected it to apply the diff of HEAD..foo but not commit them.

I then learned that "git pull --no-ff --no-commit . foo" does what I wanted. What good does it do to ignore --no-commit in the fast-forward case unless --no-ff is given?

This is with git 1.5.4.5.

-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- -==- =-=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Graham Wilson· Jun 22, 2008, 13:36 UTC · re: Stefan Richter · lore

Re: "git-pull --no-commit" should imply --no-ff...?

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:08:51PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:

> trying "git pull --no-commit . foo" for the first time, I was confused
> that --no-commit was a no-op when the pull resulted in a fast-forward.
> I.e. HEAD advanced the whole chain of commits to foo.  I expected it to
> apply the diff of HEAD..foo but not commit them.

--no-commit to me seems to mean don't commit a merge commit. Maybe what you want is something like:

 git-diff HEAD foo | git-apply

-- 
gram

Miklos Vajna· Jun 22, 2008, 13:49 UTC · re: Graham Wilson · lore

Re: "git-pull --no-commit" should imply --no-ff...?

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 08:36:06AM -0500, Graham Wilson <graham@mknod.org> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:08:51PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > trying "git pull --no-commit . foo" for the first time, I was confused
> > that --no-commit was a no-op when the pull resulted in a fast-forward.
> > I.e. HEAD advanced the whole chain of commits to foo.  I expected it to
> > apply the diff of HEAD..foo but not commit them.
> 
> --no-commit to me seems to mean don't commit a merge commit. Maybe what
> you want is something like:
> 
>  git-diff HEAD foo | git-apply

Or git merge --no-commit --squash?

Stefan Richter· Jun 22, 2008, 14:01 UTC · re: Graham Wilson · lore

Re: "git-pull --no-commit" should imply --no-ff...?

Graham Wilson wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:08:51PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> trying "git pull --no-commit . foo" for the first time, I was confused
>> that --no-commit was a no-op when the pull resulted in a fast-forward.
>> I.e. HEAD advanced the whole chain of commits to foo.  I expected it to
>> apply the diff of HEAD..foo but not commit them.
> 
> --no-commit to me seems to mean don't commit a merge commit. Maybe what
> you want is something like:
> 
>  git-diff HEAD foo | git-apply
>

Yes, I obviously got the wrong idea about git-pull --no-commit. git-diff + git-apply indeed accomplishes what I wanted to do. Thanks,

-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- -==- =-==-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/