Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use "git merge" instead of "git pull ."
From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:30
Thomas Ackermann wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt@@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from. <<fast-forwards,fast-forward>>; instead, your branch will just be updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.) -The `git pull` command can also be given `.` as the "remote" repository, -in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so -the commands - -------------------------------------------------- -$ git pull . branch -$ git merge branch -------------------------------------------------- - -are roughly equivalent. The former is actually very commonly used. -
I wonder if it would make sense to say they simply *are* equivalent. I.e., what differences are there between those two commands, and could "git pull" be tweaked to eliminate them? I agree that the historical "The former is actually very commonly used" ought to go. It wouldn't too relevant for someone learning to use git even if it were still true. ;-) [...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -2259,7 +2248,7 @@ When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the "test" branch in preparation to make it public: ------------------------------------------------- -$ git checkout test && git pull . speed-up-spinlocks +$ git checkout test && git merge speed-up-spinlocks -------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hope that helps, Jonathan