Sorry that this is cross posted to git-users but I didn't realise how low traffic that list was.
Why doesn't `git merge` default to the tracked branch in the same way e.g. `git push` does?
Often I find myself performing a pull, and when I switch branch I'm told that "Your branch is behind the tracked remote branch 'origin/ master' by 12 commits". However, despite git knowing where my branch is based and how far away it is, I still have to specify `git merge origin/master` to perform the merge.
It's been pointed out that another `git pull` will usually have the same effect, but it seems that this introduces a redundant fetch, and to be honest I couldn't work out whether the pull would fail if the remote repo was unavailable for any reason.
Obviously this is a really minor point, and it doesn't exactly affect my working day for more than a few seconds, but I was curious what I was missing that such a complete package as git had this little internal inconsistency.
TIA, Gareth