Felipe Contreras wrote:
== git update ==
Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This
command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it
could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse.
And here it is:
Philippe Vaucher wrote:
Sorry if I missed a thread where it was already decided not to include
it.
Felipe, please don't use this to start any non-constructive behavior
(rant on who is right/wrong, my patches are not accepted, etc).
I never sent those patches. I gave up on the Git project.
Felipe Contreras wrote:
== git update ==
Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This
command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it
could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse.
And here it is:
Ping Yin
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
== git update ==
Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This
command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it
could be configured to do merges
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussion about why `git pull` is broken for so
many many workflows: [1][2][3][4][5], even as far back as [6].
Many issues has been brought up, and many proposed solutions, probably
too many for most people properly digest them, so here I'll try to
synthesize them.
Felipe Contreras wrote in message
5366db742d494_18f9e4b308aa@nysa.notmuch:
== git update ==
Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This
command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it
could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussion about why `git pull` is broken for so
many many workflows: [1][2][3][4][5], even as far back as [6].
Many issues has been brought up, and many proposed solutions, probably
too many for most people properly digest them, so here I'll try to
synthesize them.
7 matches
Mail list logo