threads / discuss / 24137

git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

Subject: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

## tl;dr

9 messages between Jun 17, 2010 and Jun 18, 2010.

replies: 8people: 5as markdown or json

Daniel Blendea· Jun 17, 2010, 09:35 UTC · lore

Hello,

A while ago I have cloned on my computer a git repo. Since then, the developers have modified several files in the repo. Now I want to update my copy with the latest changes.

I do 'git pull' but I get 'Your local changes to .... would be overwritten by merge. Aborting.' I didn't modified any local file. I tried using 'git stash save' but no luck.

How can I make git update and override my local copy? With all the fuss about it, I thought I will handle this operation pretty easily.

Thank you, Daniel

Santi Béjar· Jun 17, 2010, 09:46 UTC · re: Daniel Blendea · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Blendea <bdaniel7@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Hello,
>
> A while ago I have cloned on my computer a git repo.
> Since then, the developers have modified several files in the repo.
> Now I want to update my copy with the latest changes.
>
> I do 'git pull' but I get 'Your local changes to .... would be
> overwritten by merge.  Aborting.'
> I didn't modified any local file. I tried using 'git stash save' but no luck.

Are they known to git? What is their status (git status)?

If they are not known to git, it seams that there are *new* files both in the remote branch and the working copy (new files in the working copy are not saved with 'git stash save').

I would rename/mv the conflicting new files in the working copy, perform the pull and maybe compare the new files from the branch with the ones from the working copy.

HTH, Santi

Daniel Blendea· Jun 17, 2010, 10:20 UTC · re: Santi Béjar · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

I have no idea, I know git just barely to be able to update my copy once in a while, then build it to get the binaries. I didn't modified anything and the build script builds the binaries in a different location.

The file which threw the first error was already in my copy and it was modified in the remote branch. --- Daniel

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:46, Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Blendea <bdaniel7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> A while ago I have cloned on my computer a git repo.
>> Since then, the developers have modified several files in the repo.
>> Now I want to update my copy with the latest changes.
>>
>> I do 'git pull' but I get 'Your local changes to .... would be
>> overwritten by merge.  Aborting.'
>> I didn't modified any local file. I tried using 'git stash save' but no luck.
>
> Are they known to git? What is their status (git status)?
>
> If they are not known to git, it seams that there are *new* files both
> in the remote branch and the working copy (new files in the working
> copy are not saved with 'git stash save').
>
> I would rename/mv the conflicting new files in the working copy,
> perform the pull and maybe compare the new files from the branch with
> the ones from the working copy.
>
> HTH,
> Santi
>

Michael J Gruber· Jun 17, 2010, 10:42 UTC · re: Daniel Blendea · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

Daniel Blendea venit, vidit, dixit 17.06.2010 11:35:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Hello,
> 
> A while ago I have cloned on my computer a git repo.
> Since then, the developers have modified several files in the repo.
> Now I want to update my copy with the latest changes.
> 
> I do 'git pull' but I get 'Your local changes to .... would be
> overwritten by merge.  Aborting.'
> I didn't modified any local file. I tried using 'git stash save' but no luck.
> 
> How can I make git update and override my local copy?
> With all the fuss about it, I thought I will handle this operation
> pretty easily.

If you are sure you have no own modifications which you would miss:

git fetch --all git reset --hard origin/master

Fetch is pull without trying to merge or rebase anything. the send line resets your master branch to what you just fetched.

Most likely the remote side did a non-forward push and brought you in that situation.

[Which, on a side note, is one reason why I still believe that git should not create any local branch for a clone. git fetch && git checkout origin/master does not suffer from this issue.]

Michael

Matthieu Moy· Jun 17, 2010, 11:11 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Daniel Blendea venit, vidit, dixit 17.06.2010 11:35:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> A while ago I have cloned on my computer a git repo.
>> Since then, the developers have modified several files in the repo.
>> Now I want to update my copy with the latest changes.
>> 
>> I do 'git pull' but I get 'Your local changes to .... would be
>> overwritten by merge.  Aborting.'
>> I didn't modified any local file. I tried using 'git stash save' but no luck.

Which OS? Do you have any crlf conversion enabled? Any filter set in .gitattributes?

> Most likely the remote side did a non-forward push and brought you in
> that situation.

A non-fast forward push would force a non-fast forward pull, possibly/probably with conflicts, but wouldn't trigger this message, which is generated before the merge is actually started.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Daniel Blendea· Jun 17, 2010, 11:18 UTC · re: Matthieu Moy · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

Windows 7, did not change anything related to crlf.

I solved the problem with

git fetch --all git reset --hard origin/master

--- Daniel

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 14:11, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:

Show 27 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>
>> Daniel Blendea venit, vidit, dixit 17.06.2010 11:35:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> A while ago I have cloned on my computer a git repo.
>>> Since then, the developers have modified several files in the repo.
>>> Now I want to update my copy with the latest changes.
>>>
>>> I do 'git pull' but I get 'Your local changes to .... would be
>>> overwritten by merge.  Aborting.'
>>> I didn't modified any local file. I tried using 'git stash save' but no luck.
>
> Which OS? Do you have any crlf conversion enabled? Any filter set in
> .gitattributes?
>
>> Most likely the remote side did a non-forward push and brought you in
>> that situation.
>
> A non-fast forward push would force a non-fast forward pull,
> possibly/probably with conflicts, but wouldn't trigger this message,
> which is generated before the merge is actually started.
>
> --
> Matthieu Moy
> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
>

Michael J Gruber· Jun 17, 2010, 11:58 UTC · re: Daniel Blendea · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

Daniel Blendea venit, vidit, dixit 17.06.2010 13:18:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Windows 7, did not change anything related to crlf.
> 
> I solved the problem with
> 
> git fetch --all
> git reset --hard origin/master

I guess this shows that correct diagnostics is not a prerequisite for a successful therapy ;)

(The diagnostics really indicate a work tree with local uncommitted modifications.)

Michael

Matthieu Moy· Jun 17, 2010, 15:21 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:

> Daniel Blendea venit, vidit, dixit 17.06.2010 13:18:
>> Windows 7, did not change anything related to crlf.

I never used Git on Windows, but I think Git sets autocrlf to true by default on Windows.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I guess this shows that correct diagnostics is not a prerequisite for a
> successful therapy ;)
>
> (The diagnostics really indicate a work tree with local uncommitted
> modifications.)

I'd bet for this kind of issue:

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2010/3/9/25215/thread
From: Johannes Schindelin
Subject: core.autocrlf considered half-assed

Didn't follow the outcome in details, but some patches were proposed to improve the situation.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Eyvind Bernhardsen· Jun 18, 2010, 07:44 UTC · re: Matthieu Moy · lore

Re: git pull (Your local changes to ... would be overwritten by merge)

On 17. juni 2010, at 17.21, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> I guess this shows that correct diagnostics is not a prerequisite for a
>> successful therapy ;)
>> 
>> (The diagnostics really indicate a work tree with local uncommitted
>> modifications.)
> 
> I'd bet for this kind of issue:
> 
> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2010/3/9/25215/thread
> From: Johannes Schindelin
> Subject: core.autocrlf considered half-assed
> 
> Didn't follow the outcome in details, but some patches were proposed
> to improve the situation.

Finn Arne Gangstad's "safe autocrlf" patch (c480539, currently in next) solves the problem by disabling conversion for files that contain CRs in the repository.

-- 
Eyvind Bernhardsen