On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:29 AM, John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> wrote: [snip] > Note that in my email that started this, I tried to be clear that I was > talking about "git pull" *without a branch name*. If this user > explicitly says "git pull remote branch" then I consider that a clear > indication that they really do mean to perform a merge; I would not > recommend changing the current behaviour in that case. > > If the user just says "git pull" then it is more likely that they are > just trying to synchronise with the upstream branch, in which case they > probably don't actually want a merge.
This makes a lot of sense to me. I was going to write earlier that I almost wish there was a separate command for getting your local branch "in sync" with the remote one. BTW, it also doesn't help that `git pull` is suggested as the answer anytime a push cannot succeed. I've warned my users about using `git pull`, and--unfortunately--they sometimes forget because the advice is right there in front of them. I agree with John here: it's a bare `git pull` that is often the culprit. Of course, the asymmetry between `git pull` and `git pull remote branch` is a little bothersome too, but the team does that *far* less often. -John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
