Re: [PATCH] fix shell command line in example
Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
> The comma was probably intended to be a semicolon so that the
> two commands can be run by cut-n-paste.
> ------------------------------------------------
> -$ git pull, git pull origin
> +$ git pull; git pull origin
> ------------------------------------------------
Would it ever make sense to run the two in sequence?
But upon closer reading, it seems to be a pretty terrible example anyway. It reads:
* Update the remote-tracking branches for the repository
you cloned from, then merge one of them into your
current branch:
+
------------------------------------------------
$ git pull, git pull origin
------------------------------------------------
+
Normally the branch merged in is the HEAD of the remote repository,
but the choice is determined by the branch.<name>.remote and
branch.<name>.merge options; see linkgit:git-config[1] for details.But that "normally" is no longer true: with default configs, the user would only ever have branches with tracking already set up. So *normally*, 'git pull' will merge the @{upstream}.
'git pull origin' is even worse: with tracking configured, it goes out of its way to verify that the specified remote (origin) is actually what HEAD tracks[*]. So 'git pull origin' with default configs means "please pull, but double-check me on the choice of remote". Do we want to give that to a user as the second example?
So I'm thinking it should just read
* Update the upstream origin of the current branch, then merge the
tracked branch into the current one:
+
--------------------------------------------------
$ git pull
--------------------------------------------------modulo avoiding confusion around upstream/tracking.
[*] a8c9bef (pull: improve advice for unconfigured error case, 2009-10-05) has a long explanation on the subject.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch