On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> man git-pull sayeth
>
> In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by
> git merge FETCH_HEAD.
>
> However, I just tried that and it failed rather spectacularly. How do
> you *really* update your local repo without an extra git fetch step?
If you have a "local copy of the remote" setup already that's been
updated already, you can to the merge directly:
git merge <branch>
where a branch would normally be something like:
origin/master
or
origin/REL9_0STABLE
That will make a merge commit. Another option, if you're trying to
keep linear development would be:
git rebase origin/master
That will apply all the changes in your current branch since the
"merge-base" of origin/master, onto the tip of "origin/master" (and
set your current branch to the result).
And, "git rebase -i" is something you'll probably want to become very
familiar with if you're really trying to keep a strictly linear
development history.
I'll admit to never bothering to try the "single repo/multiple
seperate workdirs" approach, so I can't speak specifically to that.
a.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
