On 14-05-01 01:56 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:

On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:20:44AM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:

quoted

On 14-05-01 05:46 AM, brian m. carlson wrote:

quoted

  git checkout maintenance-branch
  # Update our maintenance branch to the latest from the main repo.
  git pull --ff-only
  git pull --no-ff developer-remote topic-branch
  git push main-repo HEAD

…
What's more, it seems to me that the only real advantage "git pull" provides
here is a less typing compared to the non-pull equivalent:

  git fetch main-repo
  git checkout main-repo/maintenance-branch
  git fetch developer-remote
  git merge --no-ff developer-remote/topic-branch
  git push main-repo HEAD

You're missing Brian's fast-forward merge here.  It should be:

  git checkout maintenance-branch
  git fetch main-repo
  git merge --ff-only main-repo/maintenance-branch
  git fetch developer-remote
  …

I think you're mistaken -- I checked out "main-repo/maintenance-branch"
directly, so there's no need to fast-forward a local branch.

quoted

Sure, the non-pull approach makes use of Scary Branch Stuff (remotes
and namespaces and detached HEADs -- oh my!).

No need for detached heads with Brian's local maintenance-branch.

Yes.  OTOH, no need to bother keeping a local maintenance-branch up to date
if you use a detached HEAD.

If
you're teaching and just need folks merging the remote's HEAD, you
can avoid namespaces and remotes entirely:

  git fetch git://example.net/main-repo.git
  git merge --ff-only FETCH_HEAD

although I doubt “the remote's HEAD” will be easier to explain than
the namespaced, remote-tracking branches it replaces.  It's certainly
not worth the hassle of un-training FETCH_HEAD-merges later on ;).

Agreed.  I wouldn't advocate teaching people about FETCH_HEAD as if it were
something they should use regularly.

		M.