Re: Request re git status

2017-02-09 Thread Cornelius Weig
On 02/07/2017 01:45 AM, Phil Hord wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote: > Do you mean you almost pushed some changed history with "--force" > which would have lost others' changes? Use of this option is > discouraged on shared branches for this very reason.

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-07 Thread Samuel Lijin
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: >>> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-07 Thread Jacob Keller
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: >> Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think >> about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that happening >>

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: > Personally, I think that the fact that Git forces the user to think > about it in terms of "oh I have to fetch" instead of that happening > automatically, it helps teach the model to the user. If it happened in > the

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-07 Thread Jacob Keller
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Samuel Lijin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Phil Hord wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote: >>> I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote >>> server,

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-07 Thread Samuel Lijin
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Phil Hord wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote: >> I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote >> server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote. >> > > Do you mean you

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-06 Thread Konstantin Khomoutov
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 22:46:53 -0800 Ron Pero wrote: [...] > Still, one way or another, it was easy to feel tripped up by that and > some kind of verbal cue could help. > I wonder if this kind of message would help: Latest fetch: {timestamp} [...] Timestamps have little to no

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-06 Thread Ron Pero
Hi Phil Thanks very much for your reply. I do understand why git status should not automatically fetch from the server. The solution is that I become aware of that nuance (yes, I am fairly new to git) and conduct myself that way. Still, one way or another, it was easy to feel tripped up by that

Re: Request re git status

2017-02-06 Thread Phil Hord
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM Ron Pero wrote: > I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote > server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote. > Do you mean you almost pushed some changed history with "--force" which would have lost others'

Request re git status

2017-02-06 Thread Ron Pero
Hi I almost got bit by git: I knew there were changes on the remote server, but git status said I was uptodate with the remote. This page explains it well. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27828404/why-does-git-status-show-branch-is-up-to-date-when-changes-exist-upstream That page also